BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:

In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:

If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures.

I confess that you have taken a significant portion of the wind right out of
my sails. This is a good point that has come up before, but which I had forgotten
until you mentioned it.

This fellow appears in 15 sets and has a different accessory in about two thirds
of them:

Minifig No: min009 Name: Steve - Dark Purple Legs

min009 (Inv) Steve - Dark Purple Legs
Minifigures: Minecraft

I guess that leaves us with the minimalist approach, which I don't think
anyone will go for.

Which really leaves us carrying on with the current task of trying to decide
if a round 1 x 1 plate on the floor should be included in an inventory or not.
That, of course, comes down to the whims of the people deciding. Perhaps in
the end it's the best that we as a community can do.

Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without the minfiigures actually being different.

Which would be a fair compliant. Perhaps someone wiser than I can figure out
a clear, simple, consistent solution to figure inventories.

It seems to be a somewhat self-imposed problem because of the hard-coded limitations
placed on minifig inventories that does not allow for additional part types within
the inventory.

Imagine a system that pared minifigs down to the basic four parts (legs, torso,
head, hair/hat/helmet) and then had a category in its inventory for everything
else (skis, hand thrusters, swords, backpacks, capes). Like a set, they could
be listed, bought and sold with or without the "extras."

Because this may be what is already happening. Just to grab an example:

Minifig No: sh073 Name: Iron Man - Mark 17 (Heartbreaker) Armor

sh073 (Inv) Iron Man - Mark 17 (Heartbreaker) Armor
Minifigures: Super Heroes: Iron Man 3

Looking at the current listings, close to 20% of the new figures include the
hand thrusters which are not in the inventory because the BL rule excludes them.
And about 6% of the used listings are missing pieces that are in the inventory.
(This is just the listings - it would be more instructive to look at the actual
sales to see if buyers prefer to buy figures with the hand thrusters.)

Rather than trying to create ever-more complicated rules, we should look at the
problem from the angle of the user - what people are actually doing is a good
indication of what they want.

It's snowing where I live. City planners will sometimes go out after a snowfall
and look at the paths pedestrians create through the snow. These paths often
do not follow the paved paths that have been laid out by the planners. They reveal
what the actual users prefer to do. When you can see that most people cut across
the corner of the block because it's the shortest path between the coffee
shop and the subway station, you can better plan your city

This is another catalog discussion taking place from the point of view of city
planners sitting at a computer and writing rules instead of looking at the actual
paths in the snow.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 15, 2019 14:04

Subject:

Re: Who now “owns” copyright?

Viewed:

131 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Thunor writes:

@Admin Russell

This has probably been around before, my apologies!

Within international copyright law, i believe it states that copyright is automatically
vested in the creator. Unless rights are assigned (and/or reassigned) by contract.

Images supplied to BrickLink should be the property of the creator, however if
memory serves, BrickLink claimed copyright when BrickOwl emerged back in 2013.
Was copyright truly, legally transferred?

If so does LEGO group now own (or claim to own) said copyright?

OR do the individual creators of images still own Copyright?

Just curious, mostly interested in the images of minifigures being used and the
ability to use on eBay, individual stores own websites etc.

Thanks.

You always own copyright of your own original content unless it's a work
for hire or you actually transfer ownership to someone else.

Bricklink's terms do not transfer ownership to Bricklink when you upload
content. You are just agreeing to give Bricklink license to use your content
- forever.

It's all spelled out in the terms of use. Just don't confuse ownership
with license.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 12, 2019 22:07

Subject:

Re: Add Search Options to Advanced Catalog Search

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:

I need the ability to select from the following unavailable options as checkboxes
on the Advanced Catalog Search page:

Items Inventoried as Regular
Items Inventoried as Counterpart
Items Inventoried as Extra
Items Inventoried as Alternate

Thank you.

How would you use these features? Do you want to see a list of all items that
appear as, say, extras? Or do you want to take a specific part and find all the
sets in which it appears as an extra?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 12, 2019 21:10

Subject:

Re: Add An Area for Catalog Scans

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:

I suggest that BrickLink add an area to the site for scans of printed catalogs.
There are other fan sites that already do this, but the results vary. This
would be a useful feature that would compliment the BrickLink catalog, enable
more effective catalog/inventory work, and draw more visitors to the site. Plus,
there would never be questions about copyright because TLG is publishing the
data themselves.

If this was done, I would add scans of my extensive Dacta/Education catalog collection.
Nearly all of the catalogs in my collection would only be available as scans
on BrickLink.

Thanks for considering it.

Great idea. It would be even better if they could be transcribed and made searchable.
Or even a list attached with the sets that appear in it.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 10, 2019 10:02

Subject:

Re: Parts Category Tree

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I've been pondering the category trees. When you click on Parts from the
main catalog page you get hit with 230 categories. It's hard to justify
adding further categories, even though needed for some existing categories, because
there are already too many.

I've also been thinking about simple fixes that maintain the BrickLink look
and feel and imagined what it might be like with some submenus (the large image
below with the selections shrunk from 230 to only 85). The little plus signs
might not be the best way to do this - they just indicate for the purposes of
discussion that this category can be expanded or leads to another menu.

I've also imagined a Themed Parts menu and a Minifigure Items menu (those
menus happen when you select those options from the main menu) and added those
images.

Of course, I would always want to be able to see the entire category tree by
default if I chose that option.

Good things: you don't have so much to wade through - allows quicker selection
of exactly what you're looking for. Also, the categories within submenus
could be significantly expanded to make finding items even easier without fear
of adding to the existing mess.

Bad thing: you have to click into more menus to get where you're going.

Thoughts?

At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree.

I think this is part of the cycle of this discussion: we spot imperfections,
changing them have implications, we imagine some deeper more principal changes,
realise we might as well start over, and then realise no system is perfect and
things are not all that bad the way they are..

Not saying it's necessarily a bad idea in every way.... but there's one
major drawback to starting over: By now the catalog transcends Bricklink. Some
form of it has been adopted by other websites for trading as well as for collection
organisation. And I think this is really great. People are talking about wanting
to be "independent" and fear that LEGO buying Bricklink will make them "lose
independence"... but I don't think being owned by a random billionare means
"independence" either. To me, independence means that we've created a universal
Lego vocabulary that we can use anywhere and we don't depend on any one site.

Everyone knows what a Brick,Modified or a Wedge or Slope,Curved is, or what
counts as a Hinge and what as a Plate,Modified. Isn't that great? I think
it's worth preserving and strengthening. Starting over will mean Bricklink's
taxonomy will be unique and not compatible with other sites, and one system is
already more than enough to learn. This means people will get stuck with one
site and the exchange between them will be reduced, which I think would be a
shame. We're stronger when we connect everything.

I am thinking about BrickOwl, Brickscout and Rebrickable, which people also use
for buying. Are there any trading sides I'm not aware of that use a fundamentally
different catalog?

Brickscout is the only one that maps the BL categories closely. Rebrickable and
Brickowl do not. There is no top level "crane" category on Brickowl or Rebrickable,
for example. One has the crane bucket piece in a subset of the vehicle category
and one groups it with supports and turntables.

I would also point out that not everyone knows what a "plate, modified" is. Or
even a "hinge." I think regular Bricklink users imagine they know what
makes a hinge a hinge, for example, but maybe they rarely see these three parts
on the same page:

4626 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 2 x 3 Curved Bottom, Hollow, with 2 Fingers Hinge
Parts: Vehicle

51858 Crane Bucket Lift Basket 2 x 3 x 2 with Locking Hinge Fingers
Parts: Crane

30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle

Of course, not in detail. But what I mean is that the general conceptual difference
between plate and hinge is understood.

(...) Under such a system, a part like

4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge

would be a "plate, hinge" not a "hinge plate."

Likewise, all the hinge bricks would move to the brick category.

That is exactly what I mean by the general concept, and how it would be lost
in such a system. So in your system, how do category based sellers keep on selling
across platforms? If the catalog similarities with what I am using elsewhere
are lost, I am not sure how I will continue to sell on Bricklink.

What is the fundamental difference between a 1x2 plate with a hinge attached
and a 1x2 plate with a clip, or a pin hole, or a bar attached? They are all 1x2
plates with an extra type of attachment. But for some reason, the hinge attachment
has been singled out and given its own category. So some are defined by their
shape (plate), some by their type of attachment (hinge), and some by the theme
(Technic). Instead, they should all be placed in a top level category by the
same criteria. That doesn't have to be shape - it could be attachment type
or dimensions or something else, but it should be something common to all parts
and consistently applied.

As for selling across platforms, I don't see how the categories make any
difference to a seller. They don't match as it is, except for brick scout.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 9, 2019 20:38

Subject:

Re: Parts Category Tree

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree.

But Bricklink is not really connected to any other major site in that way. What
other catalogs use the category "plate, modified," or anything similar? Brickowl
(38 top-level categories) does not. Rebrickable (65 categories) does not. Brickset
uses tags based on Lego's own category system, which is very broad and has
no such category. LDraw (84 categories) does not have a similar category.

I disagree that Bricklink's category is a standard. In fact the three major
catalog sites that have appeared after Bricklink have much simpler categories.
Even LDraw, which is the Grandaddy from which Bricklink borrowed heavily in early
days, has many fewer categories.

Far from being a standard taxonomy, Bricklink's category system stands like
a clunky behemoth among the rest.

I would also point out that not everyone knows what a "plate, modified" is. Or
even a "hinge." I think regular Bricklink users imagine they know what
makes a hinge a hinge, for example, but maybe they rarely see these three parts
on the same page:

4626 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 2 x 3 Curved Bottom, Hollow, with 2 Fingers Hinge
Parts: Vehicle

51858 Crane Bucket Lift Basket 2 x 3 x 2 with Locking Hinge Fingers
Parts: Crane

30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle

Aside from the dimensions and specific descriptive words, these three parts have
two words in common: "bucket" and "hinge." They should be in the same category.
Why aren't they? Because Bricklink has so many categories that nobody is
clear on what they all mean.

In a better system there would have been a guiding principle that laid what it
is that defines a part. One possibility would be to use the part's shape
as the top defining characteristic, then move on to other characteristics, like
added functional elements. So you would group these items together based on their
shape. And you would include others with a similar shape, like

4700 Technic Digger Bucket 8 x 6
Parts: Technic

632 Conveyor Belt Inclined Bucket
Parts: Conveyor

818 Vehicle, Tipper Bucket 2 x 4
Parts: Vehicle

[p=3493]

Then from there, you could refine the category to define those with hinges. Under
such a system, a part like

4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge

would be a "plate, hinge" not a "hinge plate."

Likewise, all the hinge bricks would move to the brick category.

This is just one possibility, but basing categories on shapes (rather than half
a dozen unrelated characteristics) would have one simple advantage - every part
has a shape, and shapes truly are universal.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Dec 9, 2019 16:46

Subject:

Re: Parts Category Tree

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree. I feel the main issue is the inconsistency in how categories are
defined:

Shape - Brick, Plate, Slope, etc.
Surface appearance - All the decorated categories
Theme - Fabuland, Friends
Material - Cloth, Paper
Usage - Aircraft, Crane, Vehicle
Function - Hinge, Turntable
and so on.

It was never guided by any single, simple, defining characteristic that would
have kept it consistent. Trying to impose order on it now might reduce the "clutter"
but it won't fix the root cause of what has made it so unwieldy in the first
place.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Nov 15, 2019 19:00

Subject:

Re: BL search with Goatleg fail

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Catalog, dcarmine writes:

I loved the Goatleg search, when it was not attached to BL.

I go to goatleg.com, pick "legs Assembly" and it takes me to BL with a frame
at the top where I can choose the colors to search. There is no box to type
"other descriptions" to help narrow the field (it used to, and it does for torsos).

This is what I get when I searched Black Hips and Black Legs. One item and it
has blue hips.

The old goatleg was soooooo much better!!!! I don't know what happened with
the integration with BL, but it is not the same. It was originally made by 62bircks.

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Because there are a TON of legs Black/Black.

I blame BL. To 62bricks, I thank you for helping me with your program. I really
loved the way it worked when it was stand alone.

Donna

Got it - The results are not actually wrong, it's just a matter of how the
parts are named. The search looks for the hips by color code, and looks for the
legs by the title. So the search is only going to bring up leg assemblies that
have hips in black and that contain "black legs" in the item name.

As it happens, this is the only assembly in the catalog that meets both those
terms. If you look at the result, that assembly does indeed come with black hips
(as well as blue ones, which is the version in the main photo).

I'll look into adding a keyword search back into the leg assembly search,
but in this case it would not have changed the results.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Nov 15, 2019 18:54

Subject:

Re: BL search with Goatleg fail

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, dcarmine writes:

Hi - Goatleg is not attached or affiliated with BL at all.

I'm not sure why the results for this are not right. But I'll look into
it!

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Nov 4, 2019 17:24

Subject:

Re: Lego Samsonite 704-3 (1962) Canister

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Inventories, steelant writes:

I am looking for a brick inventory list for the 1962 Lego Samsonite set 704-3.
I know it should contain 165 pieces, but that is all I know. I looked everywhere....
Can anyone help?

Short of someone finding one that is still sealed, we may never know.

Basic Samsonite sets of this era usually included a generic instruction book
that had "ideas" but no part list or indication of the parts included. This set
would just have had mostly red and white bricks (1x2, 2x2 and 2x4), possibly
some trans-clear bricks, and some red windows and doors. It was introduced in
1962, when the bricks and windows would have been made out of cellulose acetate
plastic, but beginning in 1963 they may have been mixed with ABS parts. It would
not have had any wheels or wheel holders, as these were sold in a separate set.

This particular set was sold only through department store catalogs (like Sears).

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Oct 29, 2019 17:05

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6370-1

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6370-1 (Inv) Weekend Home
167 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1985
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1
* Delete 1 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1 (Extra)
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue

The owner of this set confirmed that his set comes with only one sprue but we
can see on one of the alternate models three 1*1 round bricks. See photos attached.

Interestingly, in the main model photo on the front of the box it appears only
one plate is used - the one on the bicycle seems to be missing.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 21, 2019 07:53

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas090

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, maesehn writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

cas090 Castle
Minifigures: Castle
Marked for Deletion

* Add 1 Part 4523 Brown Minifigure, Container D-Basket

I think you could make a case for this. I don't believe the set it is from
had typical instructions, just photos on the box. This figure is pictured assembled
with the basket.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 8, 2019 21:13

Subject:

Re: new tile category - with stickers only

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, TeeBoxLu writes:

I would love to see tiles with stickers as a separate category from printed tiles.
I have seen this topic discussed on a few Lego Facebook Groups as well.

You can isolate parts with stickers from the search results by adding sticker*
to your search terms (to find only parts with stickers) or -sticker* (to filter
out parts with stickers)

You can also use goatleg.com as a shortcut

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 7, 2019 11:55

Subject:

Re: found wrong category

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, FloathBricks writes:

Hello everybody,

Hope the post is right here. I found an article that is listed in the wrong category:

3626cpb2423 is listed under "Mini Doll, Head". Should actually under "Minifigure,
Head"

Greetings
Florian

Interesting. Why can printed versions of parts even have different categories
than their parent part? Is there even a case where that is needed? I can think
of one case: 2 x 2 x 2 Slopes with dress prints could go under Minifig,Bodypart
(or better: change the "legs assembly" category in "lower body" and move all
short legs, mermaid tails and ghost lower bodies there too). But even in this
case, those parts are simply "slope".

So if printed parts never even have a different category than their parent part,
why is it apparently needed that these parts are assigned a category manually?
It's just extra work and extra risk of error. In my own webshop's catalog,
the data of the non printed parent part is used as much as possible. That saved
me a whole lot of work.

This is why goatleg exists - the flatness of the Bricklink catalog makes it difficult
to find decorated parts because they are all thrown into one jumbled category
at the same level as undecorated parts. If the Bricklink catalog were arranged
with true categories and subcategories that move from the general to the specific,
then decorated parts would be subcategories of their undecorated versions and
would be much easier to find.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 26, 2019 18:10

Subject:

Re: Do part numbers change?

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

I'm working on my own webshop and want it to synchronise well with my Bricklink
store. My software seems to work pretty well, but now I'm wondering, does
it happen that names/numbers of parts change on Bricklink, and if so, how often
does that occur? I want to gauge how necessary it is to do some extra coding
to accommodate for this.

Possibly you should be made aware that Bricklink considers its part names and
numbers to be its own proprietary information, and that using them on your own
commerce site might draw unneeded problems. They have taken action at least once
in the past to require another site to stop using the Bricklink part numbers.

As a result, other sites choose to come up with their own part numbering system,
or they use the LDraw names and numbers, which can be used freely with the proper
attribution.

Of course many BL numbers are the numbers actually molded on the parts by LEGO,
and these are probably safe to use. Also, many BL part names and numbers are
from LDraw. These should also be safe to use.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 9, 2019 10:21

Subject:

Re: Benny's torso 973pb1652c02

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

It is what lego supplied. It has two arms, just no robot arm / claw extension.
I don't know if there is a market for it, as it cannot be sold that way.

Isn't what Lego supplies what is in the picture, just not all put together?
You just said it has two arms, but it doesn't unless you are counting the
unattached robot arm and claw. The catalog picture for a minifigure shows the
minifigure assembled. Most catalog pictures for sets show the set assembled.
But your customers are not expecting you to take what Lego supplied and assemble
it for them like the picture.

And there are plenty of listings for torsos without arms, whether there is a
market for them or not. They all get catalogued even though this is not how lego
supply them. Yet these pieces don't get listed as they are supplied - but
do get catalogued if you either add another part or remove some parts.

Yes, there are listings for EVERY torso with arms. While Lego never supplied
them with no arms and the market for unattached torsos varies greaty among them,
the point of having every torso in the catalog is that every torso is a discrete
Lego element. The catalog tries to contain every discrete Lego element, but
has always been cautious about having listings for combinations of pieces. A
full minifig, yes. Some big figs and brickbuilt animals now, yes. Combined
turntables that sometimes came assembled in sets, yes. Some combinations that
are hard to take back apart without damage, yes. But some minifig parts in an
obviously incomplete assembly because Lego supplied them? I don't see the
point and it opens a giant can of worms. Did you know that through the 80s and
90s, minifig torsos usually came with their heads attached? Should we have a
listing for each of those head/torso combinations because Lego supplied them
that way? Does anyone really want a head and torso with no hat or legs? Or
a torso with 1 arm and 1 hand? I doubt it unless the price is very low.

I think the "can of worms" is when BL makes exceptions based on precedent in
one case, but ignores precedent in other cases. The squishy definition of what
merits a separate entry in the catalog is part of what has led to issues like
this.

There may indeed be people who want to buy the torso/head assemblies from the
older sets, and there would be no harm in adding them to the catalog and including
them in inventories. But an exception has been made. We are told that some assemblies
need to be deleted from the catalog because they were never packaged that way,
yet some assemblies that were issued as new are not? Why is that?

Well, it isn't based on what people want, obviously. The market for 1x1 round
plates on the sprue is tiny compared to that for the individual plates, yet that
is the part inventoried in sets where it appeared. The market for the 1x4 hinge
assembly is many times larger than the market for the individual pieces, yet
the assembly is marked for deletion.

Consistent application of a set of simple guidelines would eliminate a lot of
these issues. In the past - and even now - it seems when faced with conflicts
like this the admins have chosen to add complexity rather than opt for simplicity.
Either way is going to result in apparent inconsistencies, but the way that requires
the least amount of waffling and explanation is preferable, in my opinion.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 9, 2019 07:41

Subject:

Re: Benny's torso 973pb1652c02

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

Precedence.

All of the other torsos that use

62691 Arm Mechanical
Parts: Minifigure, Body Part

are handled the same way.

OK, so it's historical. Will this ever be changed to reflect what is actually
received in a set rather than what is needed for a set, like the debate about
the sprued parts now being the whole sprue rather than the required parts only?

If parting these out it is necessary to assemble them, and I don't want to
assemble them if they later become the individual parts.

Please don't assemble ANY of the minifig parts if you are selling it to me.
Why would this imply that anyone wanted you to do that?

Because at Bricklink you cannot sell the torso assembly as it is supplied by
LEGO. There is not a catalogue entry for the torso, arm and hand and robot arm
without the claw, as supplied by LEGO. To match the catalogue entry, you need
to add the robot arm.

It implies you have to either add the arm to the torso, or bag them separately
to keep them together, or store them unattached but need to remember to add the
robot arm, and hope the buyer finds the robot arm before complaining that it
is missing the arm.

Another illustrative example of why the "consistency" approach doesn't work.
In cases like this, the admins have to choose which practice to be "consistent"
with, which creates inconsistency.

The way to avoid it is to have guidelines that are as simple as possible. "Define
parts based on how they are found in a sealed set" is one simple guideline. If
we always follow that guideline, then the set inventories take care of themselves
and parting out new sets works. If we make an exception, then make more exceptions
because of that first exception, then ultimately ignore the guideline because
"That's they way we've always done it," the guideline has lost its meaning.
When faced with a dilemma like this partly-assembled torso, the decision should
be made in favor of the more basic principle, not later exceptions.

I think it is clear that many of the inconsistencies in the catalog are the result
of implementing ever-more complicated "rules" that are put in place to handle
exceptions rather than basing decisions on a few simple guidelines.

It should surprise nobody that people attracted to Lego are also really into
elaborate systems, but the secret to Lego's success as a system is that it
is not elaborate. Just a few rules create a very flexible system.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 4, 2019 13:28

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.

This set consistently had 234 parts that were included inside the box regardless
of where the set was produced and what was printed on the outside of the box
since it was just an amalgam of three other sets that had been repackaged. Therefore,
your argument is moot, and the inventory will stand as is.

No, this example does not invalidate what I am saying. It demonstrates how the
rule applied here, if applied consistently, could lead to inconsistencies in
the inventories. It gives you "accurate" results in this case, but this is only
one case. Had this set only been produced in Europe and had no part count on
the box, it would lead to a different inventory - IF the rule was consistently
applied.

On the other hand, if the extra part designation were eliminated completely,
and the foolish reliance on the imaginary "official" part count was also eliminated,
then it would have the same inventory whether or not there was a part count printed
on the box.

I'm just extending what we are being told is the sole intent of the inventories
on Bricklink - to document the contents of the box so that sellers can more efficiently
part them out. I don't agree this should be the sole intent, but it is what
it is. That being the case, why is there a need to build up ever-more complicated
policies which introduce apparent inconsistencies and rely on the whim of Lego
continuing a practice it has already shown it is willing to change?

You sure do like to flog a life-challenged equine. The set inventory will stand
as is. That is the final decision of the entire admin team.

It is telling that you think I'm calling for the inventory to be changed.

I'm not. The only change I've called for is the elimination of the extra
parts designation, since the admins have to dance around with sets like this
to explain why it is an apparent exception.

If that change were made, this set would stand exactly as it is. So really, I'm
calling for all other set inventories to follow what this one does - put everything
known to be in the box in the regular section.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 4, 2019 13:10

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list.

Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models
plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official
parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the
packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section.

Where does it say anything about the official parts count being the primary guide?
It is listed first because it is the easiest and most useful thing to check.
There are cases where the instructions have the final say, e.g. in a situation
where the instructions call for a greater number of parts than the official parts
count.

It doesn't say it. This is my point. In this set, since there is no part
list, we are told that the regular items may be determined by the part count,
the instructions, etc.

In this set, using the instructions would give you one set of results that includes
extra parts, but using the part count gives you a different set of results that
does not include extra parts. There is a conflict. A choice has to be made on
which method to use. According to Randy, the part count trumps the instructions,
so that is the method that was used: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1147636

That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.

LEGO part counts are exceptionally reliable. There are a few cases where things
don't line up, but for 99.9% of the cases they are spot on. We know that
some sets don't have them, but that is nothing new. Sets produced for the
European market in the 1970's never had them.

You are not accounting for the fact that Lego has changed what it calls a "part."
When trying to reconcile the "official" count with the number of individual items
in the box, you sometimes have to consider a minifig torso and head as one piece,
as Lego sometimes did. Or you have to leave out the flowers, because they are
not "interlocking" pieces and therefore not included in the total. Or you may
have to count individual stickers (which is the only way I can even get close
to 779 parts in the Yellow Castle).

So we ignore the part count in some instances, but use it to define the complete
set in others. Any rule that relies on exceptions for it to work is not a good
rule. It would be simpler to get rid of the extra parts section and obviate the
need for any such rule at all.

That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.

It is spelled out as much as it needs to be. Any further details about how part
lists were counted slightly differently over the years or limitations of their
usefulness are matters of discussion among collectors. Please read these as examples:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027168
https://www.bricklink.com/aboutMe.asp?u=viejos&pageID=16500

We're not going to put that level of detail in the Help Pages. Our Inv Admins
have access to this kind of information to help them make informed decisions,
but it's too much for the general BrickLink public.

It is noted that the official stance is that we just don't need to know how
these decisions are made.

This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.

Maybe, but probably not. We have other ways to determine what parts should be
considered regular, and one of them is related sets.

The parts count is just one tool out of many that we use. It is not used to remove
actual contents from a set, or to add things that were never there. BrickLink's
standard is a sealed set, and that's where we start from when building an
inventory.

I put "inside" in quotes, because I mean the theoretical set made up of regular
parts. This is what a "complete" used set is made up of. Parts are indeed moved
in and out of this "complete" set based on the arcane rules we are not to be
made aware of.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 4, 2019 12:33

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 4, 2019 10:01

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.

That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.

The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

These policies are grounded in a thorough and correct understanding of LEGO history
in addition to the practical considerations of running a site that sells parts.

When you examine the change log of this inventory, you will see that as far as
extra parts goes, it has remained exactly the same as it was on the day it was
approved in July 2005. That was 14 years ago. Meaning that the extras policy
the admins are defending today is the same one used to create this inventory
all those years ago.

There was no “previous method”. There were some people who (after Dan passed
away) tried to change the way things were done, and for a short while it may
have seemed like there was some sort of new policy. But there was simply no easy
way to change everything the site had done up until that point to accommodate
a new way of defining extra pieces, so this idea of a new extras policy was confined
to a small subset of parts and an even smaller subset of sets that happened to
get inventoried at that time.

BrickLink has always preferred to document the contents of the box vs the parts
necessary to build the set. This is because BrickLink was from the a beginning
a site primarily designed to sell parts, and the inventory system was designed
primarily to part out sets. Sellers parting out sets don’t necessarily care whether
or not parts are used in the instructions. They want a list of parts that they
can upload efficiently to their store inventory and sell.

Initially there was no Extras section, and everything was placed in the regular
section. There is reams of evidence in the change logs to prove this. The Extras
section was designed to handle parts with variable presence so that sellers could
either exclude them categorically or treat them with special care during the
partout process. Parts that invariably came in a set were deemed regular parts.
Those that may or may not have been included were called extras.

Fast forward to several years ago when I was grappling with the task of more
firmly defining the rules for inventories (mainly so that conversations like
this wouldn’t have to take place). The site needed a standard to align itself
with, and it needed to be one that both sellers and collectors could live with.
A very small adjustment consisting of some rubber band holders and a few stacking
pins was all that was necessary to align the traditional partout-focused policy
with the historical practices of the LEGO Group.

So that’s where we are today, and it doesn’t seem shortsighted at all, at least
to me. I actually tried to envision what an instructions-based policy would look
like and where it would lead us. But we’ve got so many sets where there are no
instructions or the instructions only use a certain percentage of the pieces.
And when something is listed in a published parts list, it’s really not in the
site’s best interests to encourage sellers to leave those parts out of what is
considered a “complete” set. It’s just asking for problems.

The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list. That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.

That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.

This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.

If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2019 22:18

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, paulvdb writes:

In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:

In Inventories, Sango85 writes:

Hello,
I check my locomotive 10205 with Bricklink Inventory and I found differences...
I bought a new loco, and found the same differences...
I think there are errors into the Bricklink Inventory.
Please find the list of the issues.
Best regards,
Julien

To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313

If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

is the same as

KT205-1 (Inv) Large Train Engine with Tender Black
3 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

which is composed of

3741-1 (Inv) Large Locomotive (base unit without color trim elements)
92 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3745-1 (Inv) Locomotive Black Bricks
103 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3742-1 (Inv) Tender Basis (without color trim elements)
39 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives

For example:

KT305-1 (Inv) Small Train Engine Black
2 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

-Fred

Thanks for the explanation. This could probably use an inventory note to explain
the reason for these extra parts. But I'll leave that until Randy is back
from holiday because he seems to be a bit more familiar with this set than I
am.

Hey Paul -

I am now back and have access to writing on an actual keyboard instead of my
phone! Fortunately for me, Fred already laid out exactly why the inventory is
the way it is.

As he stated, this set was a repackaging of three earlier kits and some of the
parts were not used in the build for the repackaged set. However, the official
part count on this set included all of the parts from the original three kits
and were included in every set. Because of this, they are treated as Regular
Items. I will go ahead and add an inventory note to this set.

Cheers,
Randy

The rules that define regular and extra parts do not mention the "official" part
count in the criteria. Why is an exception made for this set? Those leftover
parts should be extra parts. They are not in the build and there is no parts
list for this set in the instructions or box.

Parts counts primarily only appear on North American sets. They are not determined
in a consistent way by Lego.

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562

Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary
models plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of
an official parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images
on the packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of
this section.

OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?

Yes.

It is explained right there in the text above. This policy has also been applied
consistently since it was rewritten and agreed upon by the admin team. All inventories
are being adjusted towards it as change requests for inventories come in. The
admins have also taken it upon themselves to adjust inventories as we have time.
Lastly, we have quite a few people that are helping to adjust inventories and
we thank them very much for their contributions. You know who you are.

I disagree that it is spelled out. In this instance there is no parts list, but
there are instructions and there is a part count. Those two sources of information
conflict. It is not spelled out in the policy that in this instance the part
count is what prevails. It may be written down in your own procedures but it
is not at all clear in the public information.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2019 22:13

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, paulvdb writes:

In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:

In Inventories, Sango85 writes:

To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313

If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

is the same as

KT205-1 (Inv) Large Train Engine with Tender Black
3 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

which is composed of

3741-1 (Inv) Large Locomotive (base unit without color trim elements)
92 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3745-1 (Inv) Locomotive Black Bricks
103 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3742-1 (Inv) Tender Basis (without color trim elements)
39 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives

For example:

KT305-1 (Inv) Small Train Engine Black
2 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

-Fred

OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?

Yes.

As this set demonstrates, the designation of "extra" items is essentially meaningless,
since the policy now is to document the contents of the box and not the parts
needed to build the models. The simplest thing to do to avoid confusion and the
appearance of inconsistency is to eliminate the extra parts designation entirely.

Of course that might mean apparent conflicts with what you are calling "official"
part counts, but you can't have it both ways. It appears that items are just
being moved from extra to regular or vice versa simply to make the BL inventory
count match the number that sometimes appears on some boxes in some parts of
the world.

That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.

The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2019 21:37

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, paulvdb writes:

In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:

In Inventories, Sango85 writes:

To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313

If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

is the same as

KT205-1 (Inv) Large Train Engine with Tender Black
3 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

which is composed of

3741-1 (Inv) Large Locomotive (base unit without color trim elements)
92 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3745-1 (Inv) Locomotive Black Bricks
103 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3742-1 (Inv) Tender Basis (without color trim elements)
39 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives

For example:

KT305-1 (Inv) Small Train Engine Black
2 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

-Fred

OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?

Yes.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2019 21:23

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, paulvdb writes:

In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:

In Inventories, Sango85 writes:

To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313

If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

is the same as

KT205-1 (Inv) Large Train Engine with Tender Black
3 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

which is composed of

3741-1 (Inv) Large Locomotive (base unit without color trim elements)
92 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3745-1 (Inv) Locomotive Black Bricks
103 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3742-1 (Inv) Tender Basis (without color trim elements)
39 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives

For example:

KT305-1 (Inv) Small Train Engine Black
2 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

-Fred

OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2019 21:11

Subject:

Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, paulvdb writes:

In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:

In Inventories, Sango85 writes:

To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313

If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set

10205-1 (Inv) Locomotive
234 Parts, 2002
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

is the same as

KT205-1 (Inv) Large Train Engine with Tender Black
3 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

which is composed of

3741-1 (Inv) Large Locomotive (base unit without color trim elements)
92 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3745-1 (Inv) Locomotive Black Bricks
103 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

3742-1 (Inv) Tender Basis (without color trim elements)
39 Parts, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives

For example:

KT305-1 (Inv) Small Train Engine Black
2 Sets, 2001
Sets: Train: 9V: My Own Train

-Fred

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 21, 2019 21:02

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6349-1

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6349-1 (Inv) Vacation House
193 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1988
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 4 Part 4073 Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* 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}

Source one: photos 1 and 2
Source two: photos 3-6

The end result of the policy to remove individual parts from the inventories
and replace them with the sprue version is that valuable historic information
is being removed from the catalog.

These parts and sets are rarely found in their original state - sealed and/or
on the sprues - and everyone trying to work backward from a part in hand to discover
what sets contained it will no longer be able to do that without knowing Bricklink's
arcane and counter-intuitive catalog rules.

Also, because part colors are not "known" in the catalog unless the part is in
an inventory, it is possible that some parts in some colors will simply "disappear"
from the color search and browse functions, which only brings up "known" colors.
This significantly reduces the usefulness of the catalog.

I know I am flogging a dead horse and that the admins have already decreed that
it is more important to follow Lego's packaging whims than the needs of the
secondary Lego market. But it is a bad policy.

I find this policy great, useful. We need to have consistency dealing with parts.
Some recent parts like
[p=6246c01]
appear with their sprues in the inventories, but I have seen any complaints about
them I guess because sellers still have them with their sprues for sale, then
shall we remove them from their inventories in, let's say 10 years, once
they become rare?

Collectors would prefer to see the inventory of a set in its original state.
I think bricklink would want to add another inventory for each set in which parts
appear as
they are once the model is built (i.e. no sprues, stickers applied so the parts
in the counterpart section would move to the regular section,...) This is easy
to be done, but the code is not yet implemented.

The previous method served both purposes at once. It had all the parts listed
that came in the box, as well as a section that listed just the parts used in
the model. This policy removes that information and does not replace it with
anything. Yes, if the code were updated it would be possible to get that information
back, but it has not been updated and there seem to be little likelihood that
it will be. I do not think we should remove information and functionality on
the promise of future improvements.

I find the consistency very important. We cannot have one part with sprue but
the other not, in that case how can we decide what should be presented in the
inventories and what not? Then that would depend on who the inventory admins
are at that moment and what they prefer together with other factors,...

No information is removed. Yes, the information is not presented on the page
of inventory, but whenever the code is implemented and we can have two pages
for each inventory (one for initial state, and one for once the model is built),
then we can use the historic information available (together with all evidence,
discussions) at the bottom of each inventory. For this set, it is here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=6349-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1

(sorry, but I am not 100% sure if you know this)

Yes, I know about the change logs, but they are usually used to correct errors.
There is no indication that a change was made because there was an error or just
a change in policy.

The consistency argument is just begging the question. It simply says if we change
on we should change them all, but ignores the question of whether they should
be changed in the first place.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 21, 2019 20:33

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6349-1

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

The end result of the policy to remove individual parts from the inventories
and replace them with the sprue version is that valuable historic information
is being removed from the catalog.

What historic information is being removed?

These parts and sets are rarely found in their original state - sealed and/or
on the sprues - and everyone trying to work backward from a part in hand to discover
what sets contained it will no longer be able to do that without knowing Bricklink's
arcane and counter-intuitive catalog rules.

I don't understand. Any set that contains 4073c01 with come up in a search
of 4073, since 4073 is in the inventory of 4073c01. Did you know that?

Also, because part colors are not "known" in the catalog unless the part is in
an inventory, it is possible that some parts in some colors will simply "disappear"
from the color search and browse functions, which only brings up "known" colors.
This significantly reduces the usefulness of the catalog.

What scenario are you describing? I think what you are describing is an impossible
extrapolation because you didn't know the previous point. Any color where
4073c01 is known, 4073 will automatically be known because any inventory with
4073c01 in it has 4073 in it.

I did not know that. Thank you.

My wrong assumption not withstanding, the historic information being removed
is the information on "extra" parts. Bricklink was really the only reliable source
of this information. That information is removed in many cases when parts on
sprues are moved from the "extra" section to the "regular" section.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 21, 2019 20:27

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6349-1

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6349-1 (Inv) Vacation House
193 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1988
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

Source one: photos 1 and 2
Source two: photos 3-6

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 21, 2019 19:19

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6349-1

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:

In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:

The end result of the policy to remove individual parts from the inventories
and replace them with the sprue version is that valuable historic information
is being removed from the catalog.

What historic information is being removed?

I don't understand. Any set that contains 4073c01 with come up in a search
of 4073, since 4073 is in the inventory of 4073c01. Did you know that?

I did not know that. Thank you.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 21, 2019 18:27

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6349-1

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6349-1 (Inv) Vacation House
193 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1988
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

Source one: photos 1 and 2
Source two: photos 3-6

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 17, 2019 16:31

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6634-1

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6634-1 (Inv) Stock Car
43 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1986
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Race

* Add 1 Part BA81pb01 White Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plates 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded (Counterpart)
* Delete 2 Part 3023pb01 White Plate 1 x 2 with Red 'Shell' Pattern on Long Edge (Sticker) - Set 6634 (Counterpart)

Comments from Submitter:

3023pb01 Plate 1 x 2 with Red 'Shell' Pattern on Long Edge (Sticker) - Set 6634
Parts: Plate, Decorated
Marked for Deletion

does not show the sticker properly applied. The sticker is wider than a plate, and is applied on the 1x2 plate/mudguard assembly [p=BA81pb01]

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 5, 2018 18:59

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

87 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

[…]
3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.

[…]
In what sets did 3937c01 come assembled? I was not aware they ever did.

I remember using a butter knife to separate them to make droids like

Minifig No: sp076 Name: Classic Space Droid - Plate Base, Blue and Light Gray with Trans-Yellow Eye and Black Antennas

sp076 (Inv) Classic Space Droid - Plate Base, Blue and Light Gray with Trans-Yellow Eye and Black Antennas
Minifigures: Space: Classic Space

I remember it hurt to re-assemble them (it still does).
And I thought I remembered they came assembled in the 1980’s.
But I might just be getting confused.

They are not listed in any regular part sections, only as counterparts. If anyone
can document that they were shipped assembled, this technicality might prevent
them from being deleted in the future.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 5, 2018 17:56

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

[…]
looking at https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562 I am not sure if that
difference is relevant.

Well, it does say:
“Examples include […] assembled parts which came unassembled and would be damaged
or destroyed if disassembly were attempted.”

3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.
And it now comes unassembled and it could be damaged or destroyed during disassembly,
which makes it a possible Counterpart according to the current definition.

3830c01 comes unassembled and would not be damaged or destroyed with dissassembly.
It’s not a candidate for Regular. And it would not be a candidate for Counterpart
without the proviso:
“At the present time, however, the Counterparts section is used for anything
which does not fit the definition of a regular, extra, or alternate part.”

“At the present time” means it will change when the new “Assembly” section exists.
And when that happens, 3830c01 won’t be a Counterpart.

This explains why the difference is relevant.

Now, this does not explain why the part is marked for deletion, au contraire.

In what sets did 3937c01 come assembled? I was not aware they ever did.

I think we can take Russell at his word - that this hinge is being deleted to
prevent the addition of any more "unnecessary" hinge combinations, and not based
on any of these theoretical suppositions about what makes a part a part.

The problem I have with the reason given is that it implies this part is "unnecessary."
That seems not to be supported by the fact that the hinge assemblies sell at
about three times the rate of the individual parts. It is a very necessary part
from the standpoint of Bricklink users. It is where 75% of the people looking
for these parts are finding them - under the listings for the assembled hinge.

If we want to put an end to any more new hinge assemblies, that is perfectly
achievable without also deleting this part. Just reject them if they are submitted.
This part is not setting a precedent - it is 16 years old and there has been
no explosion of new hinge assemblies in the meantime, despite the introduction
of several new hinge types.

The precedent I am worried is actually being set is that any part might
be deemed "unnecessary" based on what might happen if it is allowed to
remain, rather than based on what has actually happened and what is currently
happening in regards to how Bricklinkers are using the catalog.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 2, 2018 09:30

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mhortar writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, paulvdb writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.

Great.

I give up.

Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.

Josh

Now that you mention it, the turf war theory is making sense to me. As a result
of this discussion, several new entries of this combination have been added

3937c01 (Inv) Hinge Brick 1 x 2 with (Same Color) Top Plate (3937 / 3938)
Parts: Hinge

to reflect the bi-colored variations.

The 1x4 hinge brick is the only other one of the four hinge combinations in the
catalog that has been issued with different-colored parts, and it is the only
one marked for deletion. It looks to me like the catalog admins are drawing the
line in the sand so they can reject any color variations on the 1x4 hinge.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 15:51

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mhortar writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, paulvdb writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.

Great.

I give up.

Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.

Josh

I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."

Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 11:46

Subject:

Re: Two versions of bb67a?

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have two different versions of [P=bb67a]. Can this part be reassembled or are
there in fact two different versions of this part?

/Jan

The handle can be pulled out

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 11:38

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

20 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

Looks like most of them are individual stickers - am I imagining some that have
one sticker that wraps around?

At any rate, most of them are described as having a "sticker" when it appears
they have two stickers. I definitely looks like something that should be cleared
up.

Some of them already are entered as you describe

3596pb05 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Oval and Two Crossed Cutlasses Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Sets 6762 / 6769
Parts: Flag, Decorated

I can't tell from the image of the sticker sheet from set

1592-1 (Inv) Town Square - Castle Scene
419 Parts, 11 Minifigures, 1980
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Traffic

if it's
two individual stickers or one large. The sticker sheets for sets

939-1 (Inv) Flags, Trees and Road Signs
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

and

940-1 (Inv) Flags, Signs and Trees
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

seems to be two individual stickers and the flag which I'm
currently selling has two stickers on it.

/Jan

After looking at the note on the American flag version, I wonder if this is one
of those situations where many of these flags were entered long ago with no indication
that they had stickers on both sides, then never updated because some sellers
were selling them with only one sticker.

It might sound odd, but it would not be the first time incorrect entries were
allowed to persist simply because fixing them might confuse people. I would suggest
using the change feature to request new descriptions modeled on 3596pb05 above
and see what happens.

Catalog request made because I can't add the notes myself. Let's see
if anything happens.

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1104751

/Jan

Looks like it's happening right now - thanks!

For future reference, notes have to be added by an admin, but title/description
changes can be submitted using the request form.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 10:41

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, paulvdb writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.

Great.

I give up.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 18:45

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.

It sounds as though you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself.

Absolutely not the case. I'm just recognizing that reasonable people disagree
on the issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."

I define a commercial assembly as any assemblage of individual parts which did
not come in the package already assembled. The only reason for having catalog
entries for assemblies which originally came unassembled is to facilitate the
ease of buying and selling them. I would make an exception to that definition,
however, for minifigures.

Yes, they fit together. Yes, they were intended to be assembled by the end user.
Yes, they were intended by TLG to be used as one part. Yes, in the wild you're
likely to find them already assembled. Yes, sellers and buyers would prefer
to have the ability to sell them as a unit instead of individual parts. None
of those facts make the reasons for including them in the catalog any less commercial.

Several of those criteria accurately describe this part:

spa0008 (Inv) Jurassic World Gate - Set 10758
Parts: Special Assembly

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

The special assemblies section is very small. I don't like them, and am glad
there are not more. They do not represent what we're talking about here,
because they are not parts that are intended to be used with one another primarily.
That gate is made up of common parts that are basic elements not designed to
be used with any other specific elements like the halves of a hinge brick
are.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 15:04

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

The "damaged by separation" criterion is, again, coming at the issue from the
wrong end. Its intention is not to create a definition that reflects the reality,
but to create a definition that reduces the number of "parts." That is backward,
in my opinion.

I believe I've been rather open about the fact that I'd prefer not to
see the catalog filled up with assemblies which exist solely for commercial purposes.
My interest in the catalog has always been as a reference tool about the history
of LEGO items.

Yet, I know that the catalog exists to fulfill market needs. Therefore, I'm
adding the assemblies to inventories as you (and presumably others) wish. Actually,
you're the only one who spoke up to present the commercial position and you're
getting what you wanted. Frankly, I thought you would've experienced a greater
happiness about this than you have so far expressed.

I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.

My outlook is not simply "commercial." I want a reference source, too. From my
point of view, that is what I am advocating for - criteria that reflect the reality
of how Lego is used, not artificial criteria that reflect the relative ease or
difficulty of keeping track, or of making updates.

So when I see a similar proposal being made for inventories,
it looks like a step in the wrong direction to me.

Fair enough. The rules I created were only a test and I removed them a few days
after making them - no changes were made to inventories in regards to those rules.

Sellers can put whatever they want in the catalog that the administrators will
approve - the only thing I ask is that a new section for inventories be added
so that all the commercial assemblies can be in one place together and not affect
the content or rules of a given inventory or the sections of that inventory.
I and others (pretty much everyone else who responded to this thread) would
be happy with that and merchants should be happy with having all the commercial
assemblies appear in their appropriate inventories.

I honestly do not expect a flood of new assemblies being submitted and/or approved.

It seems the lines are being drawn between "sellers" and everyone else. I disagree
with that assessment. I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
The 1x4 hinge, for example, which before now has been exiled from inventories,
is not an imaginary assembly dreamt up by a seller. It's a hinge; a functional
Lego part. I think it is reasonable to believe that sellers, buyers and collectors
will buy, sell and search for this assembly as a unit. Defining it as a part
and including it in inventories not only benefits buyers and sellers, it reflects
how the parts are usually found and actually used.

Thank you, by the way, for the changes you made to the windows. I've been
working on this:

3937c01 (Inv) Hinge Brick 1 x 2 with (Same Color) Top Plate (3937 / 3938)
Parts: Hinge

It now appears in 96 sets, up from 0 sets just a few days ago. It's going
rather slowly because I keep having to check through set instructions to make
sure the correct assemblies are added. The smaller sets are easier because you
can usually see the assemblies in the set picture.

That is a tough one.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:39

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7894-1

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7894-1 (Inv) Airport
675 Parts, 5 Minifigures, 2006
Sets: Town: City: Airport

* Add 11 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:39

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7894-2

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7894-2 (Inv) Airport - ANA Version
678 Parts, 5 Minifigures, 2007
Sets: Town: City: Airport

* Add 11 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7046-1

Viewed:

4 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7046-1 (Inv) Fire Command Craft
257 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Fire

* Add 2 Part 4863c03 Red Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7893-1

Viewed:

10 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7893-1 (Inv) Passenger Plane
384 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2006
Sets: Town: City: Airport

* Add 18 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-13

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-13 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Aeroflot Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2006
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-7

Viewed:

5 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-7 (Inv) Passenger Plane - ANA Air Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 1 Gear, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7893-2

Viewed:

6 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7893-2 (Inv) Passenger Plane - ANA version
385 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2006
Sets: Town: City: Airport

* Add 18 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-10

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-10 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Austrian Air Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-3

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-3 (Inv) Passenger Plane - EL AL Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-4

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-4 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Iberia Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-5

Viewed:

6 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-5 (Inv) Passenger Plane - JAL Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-11

Viewed:

10 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-11 (Inv) Passenger Plane - KLM Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2006
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-6

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-6 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Lauda Air Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-1

Viewed:

6 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-1 (Inv) Passenger Plane - LEGO Air Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-12

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-12 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Malaysian Air Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2005
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:36

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-2

Viewed:

6 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-2 (Inv) Passenger Plane - SAS Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:36

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-9

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-9 (Inv) Passenger Plane - Snowflake Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2004
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 07:36

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4032-8

Viewed:

13 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4032-8 (Inv) Passenger Plane - SWISS Version
1 Set, 2 Parts, 2005
Sets: Town: World City: Airport

* Add 6 Part 4863c03 White Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane with Trans-Black Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 17:07

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:

In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:

In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:

[…]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]

One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.

But as a Bricklink seller?

There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.

But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1

This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.

There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.

This appears, like lot limits, to be a "solution" for sellers who believe the
only way to make money is to keep their customers from taking up their time filling
orders.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 16:16

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

No one hates them and they are not offensive. Here's an overview of the
problem:

Part assemblies were added with no forethought. Someone realized that this may
not be the wisest route and part assemblies (for the most part) stopped being
added. Some were removed from inventories. Others remained. There the situation
remained and we are left with a mess no one has wanted to tackle.

Do we add more part assemblies or do we instead delete the ones which exist?
What criteria do we use for deciding this?

Ultimately, as you have pointed out, those are catalog issues. I have no say-so
there, but it does fall on me (and Marek - this isn't a one-man show) to
decide what to do with assemblies in inventories.

At any rate, I am still concerned that any new rules for defining counterparts
will be based on the hopelessly subjective "hard to take apart" criterion.

Actually, the way I worded it is "extremely difficult to separate or likely
to be damaged by separation." I'm aware that this is subjective (more on
that in just a moment).

Something I do quite regularly in preparing used parts for sale is to remove
stickers that have slid out of place, clean the gummy dirt from the brick, then
replace the sticker. It takes some attention, but it is not difficult to do,
and there is no damage to the sticker.

It's not merely that this definition is subjective, it's that it is not
grounded in how the parts and the catalog are actually used. So what if the 1x4
hinge bricks can be pulled apart easily? Who uses them separately? How many people
are looking to buy and sell it as a unit compared to people who just want one
half or the other? I find one set that uses only one of these parts in a non-hinge
function. It's a part - a hinge.

The "damaged by separation" criterion is, again, coming at the issue from the
wrong end. Its intention is not to create a definition that reflects the reality,
but to create a definition that reduces the number of "parts." That is backward,
in my opinion.

The issue here is with what gets into the catalog in the first place.

That and not deleting what should never have been added.

We have these small assemblies that meet the cat admins' definition of a "part" but
that the inventory admins do not want to list on the inventory pages, thus creating
orphans.

You should be happy that this has now changed.

For an assembly to be considered a part, it should be made up of pieces designed to work together as a unit, which are shown as sub-assemblies in at least one set of instructions.

With this definition I have to ask where you would stop? Do you want a catalog
filled with these things? A catalog where you have to scroll through hundred
of assemblies in different colors (because a new catalog entry must be created
for each color combination), in different patterns (because new catalog entries
must be created for each stickered version of the assembly), and in different
variants (because new catalog entries must be created for each assembly which
includes a part variant)?

I think it's kind of funny to see opposite assumptions being made in support
of the same objection. On the one hand, some people are saying there are not
enough contributors who will go through and inventory counterparts, then there
are people saying if we open the gates wide open on defining counterparts, there
will be a flood of people contributing them to the catalog.

I think we are all aware of the reality. There are a handful of non-admin members
who are regular and prolific contributors. This is great. I expect they consider
it an extension of their hobby. Speaking for myself, I am usually motivated to
contribute by market factors. I sell Classic Space parts. I wanted a certain
wheel/tire assembly in the classic space inventories so my customers could find
them. So I took 30 minutes of my time, took a photo, submitted the assembly,
then submitted the inventory requests. Now that we are going to inventory existing
assemblies, I'm happy to focus on the ones in Classic Space, Legoland, Town,
etc which is where I want to find my customers. And if I happen across a 4447c01
with a sticker on the glass and I want to sell it, I'll take a picture, submit
it, and if it's approved I'll add it to the inventory. But I'm not
going to go out and buy up every patterned glass just to add them all at once.
Possibly other sellers who have them in hand will submit them also. And so the
catalog grows slowly, according to the needs of the users.

As for scrolling through too many parts, I see promise in the discussion that
took place over the Express version of the site. The current taxonomy is not
well organized. It's one of those things that seasoned users have just grown
to understand, but it is not intuitive and it does not follow accepted methods
of organization. That BL is simplifying it for the express version tells me they
have come to this conclusion as well. In a well-organized catalog, you don't
have to scroll a lot. With a decent search function, you may not have to scroll
at all.

I like that you want a definition based on more objective criteria, but it isn't
practical. Subjective criteria simply make more sense here. Regardless, those
are catalog issues and the catalog administrators do not appear to be interested
in discussing the issue. All I can do is handle my job, which is inventories.

As far as inventories, I'm going to make the best of an imperfect situation.
If it was added to the catalog, then it goes into inventories.

I would like to see some new people involved in administering the catalog. My
criticism in the past has been along these same lines - that we create and adhere
to artificial rules for their own sake rather than make common-sense decisions
based on reality. The former ban on allowing minifigs to be inventoried with
solid-stud heads is a prime example. It was a rule made to accommodate a shortcoming
in the catalog, not one that reflected the demands of the users, and it took
far too long to rectify. So when I see a similar proposal being made for inventories,
it looks like a step in the wrong direction to me.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6392-1

Viewed:

12 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6392-1 (Inv) Airport
450 Parts, 8 Minifigures, 1985
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Airport

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 Black Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 725-1

Viewed:

10 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

725-1 (Inv) Basic Building Set
414 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1990
Sets: Universal Building Set: Basic

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 Red Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 730-2

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

730-2 (Inv) Basic Building Set
407 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1985
Sets: Universal Building Set: Basic

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 740-1

Viewed:

10 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

740-1 (Inv) Basic Building Set
524 Parts, 1 Book, 1985
Sets: Universal Building Set: Basic

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 Yellow Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:38

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 4996-1

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4996-1 (Inv) Beach House
522 Parts, 2008
Sets: Creator: Model: Building

* Add 1 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6387-1

Viewed:

5 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6387-1 (Inv) Coastal Rescue Base
339 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 1989
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Coast Guard

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6472-1

Viewed:

5 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6472-1 (Inv) Gas N' Wash Express
453 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2001
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Gas Station

* Add 8 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6374-1

Viewed:

7 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6374-1 (Inv) Holiday Home
243 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1983
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 1472-1

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

1472-1 (Inv) Holiday Home
321 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 1987
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Add 1 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6388-1

Viewed:

6 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6388-1 (Inv) Holiday Home with Caravan
322 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 1989
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Add 1 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 7866-1

Viewed:

8 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

7866-1 (Inv) Remote Controlled Road Crossing
189 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1983
Sets: Train: 12V

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:37

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6360-1

Viewed:

10 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6360-1 (Inv) Weekend Cottage
103 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1986
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Add 1 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:36

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1

Viewed:

5 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

1484-1 (Inv) Weetabix Town House
197 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1987
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Building

* Add 2 Part 4447c01 White Window 4 x 4 x 3 Roof with Trans-Clear Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:12

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6389-1

Viewed:

15 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6389-1 (Inv) Fire Control Center
507 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 1990
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Fire

* Add 7 Part 2493c02 White Window 1 x 4 x 5 with Trans-Light Blue Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 14:11

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 9364-1

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

9364-1 (Inv) Hospital
492 Parts, 19 Minifigures, 5 Books, 1 Gear, 1993
Sets: Educational & Dacta: Town: Hospital

* Add 10 Part 2493c02 Blue Window 1 x 4 x 5 with Trans-Light Blue Glass (Counterpart)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 29, 2018 08:33

Subject:

Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.

Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.

Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.

These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.

This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.

I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.

Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.

Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.

I guess I just don't understand the hate for counterparts and having them
in inventories. The section is at the bottom of the page and easily ignored by
anyone whose sensibilities are offended by their presence. In the meantime, those
of us who want to sell them benefit from having them attached to the inventories.

At any rate, I am still concerned that any new rules for defining counterparts
will be based on the hopelessly subjective "hard to take apart" criterion.

There are two questions, here - what makes an assembly a "part" for the purposes
of creating a catalog entry for it, and what makes a part a "counterpart" for
purposes of adding it to an inventory. I think we are coming at this from the
wrong end. It should not be a question of defining "counterpart," but "part."

We already have some guidelines on what should not be submitted for catalog
entries:

Items that should not be added to the catalog:
...
Part Combinations - For example 2, 3, or 4 bricks stacked together
should not be added to the catalog as there are virtually infinite possibilities
for these combinations.
...
Large part assemblies. - Large assemblies of parts that can be built
into figures, vehicles, or other structures often comprise a substantial portion
of a set and should not be added to the catalog. An exception has been made in
the past for some DUPLO vehicles representing fictional characters.
( https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=71 )

By implication, then, I would argue, if the catalog admins have deemed that a
submission is not merely a "part combination" or a "large part assembly" then
it is a valid entry - it's a "part."

Once it's in the catalog, the existing definition of counterpart applies
- special assemblies of parts from the Regular Items section
( https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562 )

The issue here is with what gets into the catalog in the first place. We have
these small assemblies that meet the cat admins' definition of a "part" but
that the inventory admins do not want to list on the inventory pages, thus creating
orphans. Changing the definition of "counterpart" does nothing to prevent future
orphans. At the risk of being too blunt, the only way to prevent more orphans
is to stop having children.

So I think the discussion should turn to what makes a small assembly a part (and
by extension, a valid counterpart). One method already suggests itself - look
to the instructions. Many of these parts under discussion are shown as distinct
sub-assemblies in the instructions. They are assembled as a unit, then placed
in the model.

No - a sub-assembly by itself should not define a "part." That is already addressed
in the "part combination" exception in the present guidelines. For an assembly
to be considered a part, it should be made up of pieces designed to work together
as a unit, which are shown as sub-assemblies in at least one set of instructions.
This is in addition to stickered parts and wheel-tire assemblies, which already
have specific guidelines and an established practice for inclusion.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 19, 2018 14:43

Subject:

Re: 12V Train 70026 and 73112 difference

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog Identification, Dino1 writes:

In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:

Can someone educate me on how to tell which one of these I have?

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

73112 Electric, Train 12V Manual Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3
Parts: Electric, Train

The one I have has three electric contact holes in the end. The 3D image for
73112 does not show any electric contact holes, but I do not trust the 3D images.
Does 73112 have electric contacts?

No, it's the first wireless remote control...

great - Thanks!

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 19, 2018 14:43

Subject:

Re: 12V Train 70026 and 73112 difference

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog Identification, SezaR writes:

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

have 3 contact holes.

73112 Electric, Train 12V Manual Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3
Parts: Electric, Train

don't! It is a manual control so no contact hole.
There are two variations of

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

not yet recognized.In the first variation, the middle contact hole is not deep
enough. If you have a connector with middle pin, if it fits it, it is the later
variation. You may add this in the description as some buyers care about this.
See my photo attached:
Left remote control in the photo: early release (1980) applicable with connectors
without middle pin
Right remote control: later release (1981-94) applicable with connectors with
or without middle pin

In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:

Can someone educate me on how to tell which one of these I have?

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

73112 Electric, Train 12V Manual Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3
Parts: Electric, Train

The one I have has three electric contact holes in the end. The 3D image for
73112 does not show any electric contact holes, but I do not trust the 3D images.
Does 73112 have electric contacts?

Thank you.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 19, 2018 10:48

Subject:

12V Train 70026 and 73112 difference

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Can someone educate me on how to tell which one of these I have?

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

73112 Electric, Train 12V Manual Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3
Parts: Electric, Train

The one I have has three electric contact holes in the end. The 3D image for
73112 does not show any electric contact holes, but I do not trust the 3D images.
Does 73112 have electric contacts?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 19, 2018 06:40

Subject:

Re: Dark Grey 4095?

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, BeauBricks writes:

Hey all!

Busy uploading bunches of parts when I came across 4x 4095, but they are in Dark
Grey?
According to the catalog, this part has never been released in DG.

Where does this piece come from? Is it real Lego? I have not found any fake lego
in the bunch.

Thanks!

In the Bricklink catalog, a part becomes "known" when someone lists it in an
inventory. There are still many parts that are known to exist in real life, but
are not yet in inventories, so the catalog does not list them as "known."

It looks like this may be one of those parts. You can see that other sellers
have this for sale in this color, and some have even sold recently - at a high
price for this part!

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4095&colorID=10

As for where it came from I would guess one of these two sets:

7897-1 (Inv) Passenger Train
489 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2006
Sets: Train: RC Train

7786-1 (Inv) The Batcopter: The Chase for the Scarecrow
284 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2007
Sets: Batman I

These are the only two that currently have the DBG version inventoried, and they
are from 2006 and 2007, which is around the time Lego switched the colors. Possibly
early versions of these sets had the part in dark gray and later ones in dark
bluish gray.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 17:54

Subject:

Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes?

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:

In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:

In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:

In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:

I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?

I think it must be

3009pb156 Brick 1 x 6 with Red 'Shell' Wide with Squared 'e' Pattern
Parts: Brick, Decorated

Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a

crssprt02 Brick 1 x 6 without Bottom Tubes, with Cross Supports
Parts: Brick

I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.

I would say it's neither of the two. 3009pb156 has 5 buttom tubes, and crssprt02
has none (but two cross supports). Mine has 2 buttom tubes with supports.

/Jan

Yes, and it has thin walls with vertical ridges. This is not an early brick design.

I didn't look closely. Weird. No point to the ridges without the pins. Some
kind of error?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 16:37

Subject:

Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes?

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:

In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:

I think it must be

3009pb156 Brick 1 x 6 with Red 'Shell' Wide with Squared 'e' Pattern
Parts: Brick, Decorated

Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a

crssprt02 Brick 1 x 6 without Bottom Tubes, with Cross Supports
Parts: Brick

I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 12:12

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.

Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.

Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).

Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.

I misunderstood the original statement. I follow your logic here.

For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Well, what angers me is those who do the most complaining and champion the increase
in work are the same individuals who do not end up contributing to the work.
See where I'm coming from?

Yes I do, and it is insulting.

Here is an example. I specialize in vintage parts. A good portion of my sales
are to people restoring Classic Space sets. Here is an assembly that was missing
from the catalog:

122c01assy4 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Red Wheels with 2 Black Wheel Full Rubber Balloon with Axle Hole (122c01 / 4288)
Parts: Wheel & Tire Assembly

Judging by how often I sold the components, I determined there was a market for
it as an assembly. I submitted it and it was approved. Then I added it to the
nine sets in which it appears, as a counterpart. Also approved.

Just a small contribution. I've sold dozens of these since then, and they
are currently selling at the rate of about 20 per month. Not a huge contribution
to the catalog. Not a huge contribution to the income of Bricklink or any one
seller. But all these small contributions by the people to whom they are important
- as well as those of the people who have made regular contributions part of
their Lego hobby - have made this catalog what it is. Encouraging pissing matches
over who does more is counter to the spirit of community on which the site was
built.

Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.

It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.

The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:

3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports
Parts: Brick

Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.

I am not opposed to the work. I am opposed to the bloat of inventories that impede
my ability to do the work that I do on the site. Yes, my motives are selfish,
but your motives are based on what you want as a seller and in turn also selfish.

Ah. Well, I would just repeat what I have been saying in a slightly different
way - whose "selfish" needs are meant to be met by Bricklink? Catalog contributors?
Or sellers? (and buyers and collectors?)

Like Robert said, not everyone will be happy no matter what decisions are made.
So that is why I wrote the following a few posts ago:

"So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need
to ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of
just one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking
at what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?"

Any thoughts on that?

Options are great.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:37

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).

Randy

It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.

And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening
the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest
of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:28

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.

Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.

It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.

The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:

3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports
Parts: Brick

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 09:38

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In LEGO, mhortar writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

Using

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.

Josh

There have been, yes. But this is not an issue. We already have a method for
dealing with bi-color parts, which is to define one color in the title and one
in the color field. Like these parts, for example:

4592c02 (Inv) Antenna Small Base with Black Lever (4592 / 4593)
Parts: Antenna

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 09:34

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

Call it a rule that has been applied arbitrarily, then. And the method under
discussion is just as subject to random application because it is apparently
based on how difficult it is to separate the parts. Randy has already disagreed
with me on the relative difficulty of pulling the hinge plates apart compared
to the hinge bricks. That would be how we would be deciding whether a part is
inventoried or not?

Does that not seem absurd?

The comparison to minifigs is not merely general - it is exactly analogous. They
are both common assemblies of easily-separated parts that collectors, buyers
and sellers want to deal with both as a unit and as individual components. We
include minifigs in inventories, we should include assemblies, too.

That Lego sets have photos of the minifigs on the box is meaningless - as I say,
we depart from Lego all the time because the needs of the secondary market are
different. And besides, the fully-assembled counterparts are also pictured on
the box and that does not bless them into the inventory. And besides again, see
the subthread about the Cars characters, which are also named and appear on the
boxes but are not inventoried as figures or counterparts. So - Lego defining
an assembly does not mean that Bricklink does, and vice versa. I have
no problem with that, because as I say our needs are different.

And I think we may have lost sight of what the needs of the Bricklink user are.
When we start layering rules on top of one another for the ease of administrators
rather than the needs of the user, we are failing to learn from the past.

It would be much simpler to have one rule rather than two, and the place to apply
the rule is in the creation of assembly entries. If counterparts are threatening
to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 17, 2018 23:25

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.

Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.

Using

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.

Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.

A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?

Now look at a practically identical part:

2429c01 (Inv) Hinge Plate 1 x 4 Swivel (2429 / 2430)
Parts: Hinge

I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.

This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.

Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.

In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.

So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:

If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.

Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.

Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.

So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?

I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.

Cheers,
Randy

I think most people would not understand why one is in inventories and the other
is not. The parts are very similar.

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller. We define minifigs as a unit and inventory
them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.

Why do we do that? Because that's how people want to use our catalog. Imagine
what it would be like if we applied this restricted counterpart definition to
minifigs and did nnot allow them to be listed in set inventories. It would make
it simpler to create inventories, right? People could still figure things out
by tracking down the constituent parts. So why not?

Because minifigs are assemblies that users want to buy, sell and identify as
an assembled unit. The same is true of many counterparts.

"Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less. But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place. But if they
ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them
in inventories. That is one of the basic features of the catalog.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 17, 2018 19:08

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.

Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.

Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.

A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?

Now look at a practically identical part:

2429c01 (Inv) Hinge Plate 1 x 4 Swivel (2429 / 2430)
Parts: Hinge

Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.

So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:

If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.

Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 11:14

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

3596pb05 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Oval and Two Crossed Cutlasses Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Sets 6762 / 6769
Parts: Flag, Decorated

I can't tell from the image of the sticker sheet from set

1592-1 (Inv) Town Square - Castle Scene
419 Parts, 11 Minifigures, 1980
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Traffic

if it's
two individual stickers or one large. The sticker sheets for sets

939-1 (Inv) Flags, Trees and Road Signs
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

and

940-1 (Inv) Flags, Signs and Trees
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

seems to be two individual stickers and the flag which I'm
currently selling has two stickers on it.

/Jan

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 07:01

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

The names of parts like this one suggest that they only have a sticker on one
side, but all sets that they occur in have at least two of every sticker (some
mirrored), suggesting that they should have a sticker on both sides. I suggest
that either a note is made on the items or that they are renamed so that the
name says that they have stickers on both sides.

Opinions?

/Jan

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

3596pb05 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Oval and Two Crossed Cutlasses Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Sets 6762 / 6769
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:52

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Look at the note on this flag - seems this is an issue that has caused problems
in the past.

3596pb04 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with United States Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:45

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:42

Subject:

Re: Identifying sets from inventory

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, malcolmsetter writes:

I was wondering if it was possible to identify from a store inventory what sets
could be made (or 90% made). This would be helpful with bulk buys and seeing
what sets could be made from the bulk purchase.

There used to be a search function where you could put in a set number and see
all the parts from that set that were in a certain store. It wasn't exactly
like what you describe, but it was useful for people looking to complete sets.

That function "broke" during one of the site updates and has not been fixed.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 7, 2018 19:19

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Hi

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

/Jan

All of these doors have glued glass, hole or no hole, with one exception: 32b
with 32glass in CA plastic. I have not found these in ABS, nor have I found a
33b. Yet

So there is a seperate entry.

32b Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left, without Glass
Parts: Door

32glass Glass for Door 1 x 2 x 3 Left
Parts: Window, Glass & Shutter

I have several of these in red ABS

I am interested, sent you a PM

To be clear - I have several 32b in Red ABS - I thought it was this one you said
you had not seen in ABS.

All of my doors of this type are 32s.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 7, 2018 18:37

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Hi

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

/Jan

All of these doors have glued glass, hole or no hole, with one exception: 32b
with 32glass in CA plastic. I have not found these in ABS, nor have I found a
33b. Yet

So there is a seperate entry.

32b Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left, without Glass
Parts: Door

32glass Glass for Door 1 x 2 x 3 Left
Parts: Window, Glass & Shutter

I have several of these in red ABS

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 5, 2018 08:45

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, PurpleDave writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

There is no hole. In the no-hole version, the glass is cut into a perfect rectangle
and attached with thin lines of glue just above and below the opening. The mold
is also slightly different. The edges are sharper and the top section is thicker
on the front.

In the version with a hole, the glass has a tab on the top edge that fits the
hole. The corners are rounded. It may or may not be glued in place also. There
are two versions of the glass - one is shown here (in red) where the lower edge
of the glass is curved to accommodate the center prong. This version is glued.
There is another version where there is a tab on the lower edge that fits into
the channel molded into the prong. I think these are removable, but I don't
have one handy to check.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 5, 2018 08:27

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SezaR writes:

I just noticed another difference: the handle or key-hole or whatever it is
in some versions it is on the right and in the other on the left

These variants are cataloged

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

32bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

In Catalog, SezaR writes:

These are my windows. Note that:
- the windows on the right column have hole in their frames.
- the windows on the left column don't have any hole.
- all glasses are fixed.

I tried to remove the glass of one (the red one on the right column, on the bottom)
I managed to remove it by breaking it! (another sacrifice of my personal collection

) the glass doesn't have a tap. Nevertheless, it is fixed.

My white one on the right column was already broken but it is interesting that
the shape of the glass glued to the window is different (at the bottom) like
those on the left column.

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Couple quick questions. Is the glass loose in the red door, or is it still glued
to the frame? If you look on the inside of the yellow frame, can you tell if
the glass has tabs or if it's cut straight across? I ask this because from
where I'm sitting, looking at a single photo on a computer screen, I can't
tell if it's possible that the yellow frame has the same hole and it's
just obscured by a layer of flash. This happened with the headlight bricks,
which resulted in them being split into two catalog entries for "slotted" and
"unslotted", when it was really just parts where the flash was still attached
and parts where it either didn't form or had been removed (it was pretty
easy to poke it out with a fingernail and leave a nice crisp rectangular hole,
which tells you just how intentional it was when it occurred).

There might be a hole inside the door frame, but it doesn't go all the way
through to the outside on the yellow door. I'll check and answer your questings
regarding the glass during next week. I won't be home until then.

I have pictures of all combinations of hole/no hole and color. 4 in total. Two
with hole (red, white) and two without (red, yellow). Images attached.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 2, 2018 18:06

Subject:

Re: Question on catalog image uploads

Viewed:

22 times

Topic: