Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 22:49 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Unfortunately, single digits are thrown out of many of the search results.
|
Aren't you the fella to talk to to get that changed, Mister Site Manager?
| | But I think in general one would find more numerals in item names than the words
spelled out simply because it makes the name shorter.
|
While that is undoubtedly true, it's not particularly helpful in any way.
If you search, say, legs assemblies...
search for "three" you get two results
search for "3" you get: The following keywords were excluded from your search:
3
...however there are 13 entries containing "3"
Isn't the point of StormBluser's standardization plan to fix this stuff?
To paraphrase the StormBluser: why name something like this when 75% of the search
words are invalid?
Again, I'll make the point you need to distinguish between identification
and discovery. The identification of a thing is irrelevant if it can't be
discovered. People use the search box to find things, they don't browse 180,000
individual items looking for "3". Hope you get my drift.
Aren't you the number one proponent of making the catalog useful? Let's
figure out a way to make it useful.
|
 |
| Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 22:24 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker # When adding Items | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, OmnipresentECA writes:
| | I have come across a few tiles with stickers that are not in the catalog.
, nor in their set inventory.
How do I go about determining the Sticker # when Adding to the catalog.
For example one is a 87079pb###, how do I determine the last few digits?
|
Search for 87079pb*
You will get 725 results. The next ‘free’ number should be 726.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
So:
Three eyeballs, Three earlobes
or
3 eyeballs, 3 earlobes
not
Three eyeballs, 3 earlobes
...that kind of thing.
There are pros and cons for each option. Please investigate how the search mechanism
works to see which option yields better results.
|
Unfortunately, single digits are thrown out of many of the search results. But
I think in general one would find more numerals in item names than the words
spelled out simply because it makes the name shorter.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 21:08 | | Subject: | Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 168 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
So:
Three eyeballs, Three earlobes
or
3 eyeballs, 3 earlobes
not
Three eyeballs, 3 earlobes
...that kind of thing.
There are pros and cons for each option. Please investigate how the search mechanism
works to see which option yields better results.
|
| Author: | OmnipresentECA | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 15:30 | | Subject: | Sticker # When adding Items | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have come across a few tiles with stickers that are not in the catalog.
, nor in their set inventory.
How do I go about determining the Sticker # when Adding to the catalog.
For example one is a 87079pb###, how do I determine the last few digits?
|
|
| Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | According to the new standard for "difference types" the difference has to be
related to the way a part functions, not just cosmetic differences. So with
that rule, there would be only one entry for this hat.
|
I think there you are talking about run change things. Minor adjustments to
a mold to use less plastic or something that don't change its function at
all don't make "a difference". But a change of design on a hat makes it
a new hat.
|
Ok good to know.
Donna
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Questions about Unikitty / Counterparts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mjwest83 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | But for all other sets, we've decided one entry is enough. To allow more
entries like this would create a precedent with huge implications. So your pending
entries will be rejected in a few days.
|
In regards to the two Unikitties in set , if you only want to list
one of them, fine. But which one? The decision is totally arbitrary. The box
itself is effectively two separate presentations. It doesn't have a front
and back, so much as two fronts. If you look at the instructions, they do NOT
have numbers. Instead it has two equal, independent instruction books. Really,
this set is two completely independent sets that happen to use the same parts.
As such, choosing just one of those Unikitties is a completely arbitrary decision,
and it can be argued that either one should be the primary.
|
The box, instructions, and LEGO set description are definitive about the situation,
although it may not look that way at first.
(1) LEGO lists the first instruction manual as the one used to build the house.
(2) The set is named "Emmet's Dream House/Rescue Rocket!", so it is clear
which model is considered the main model and which is considered the alternate
model.
(3) The set description from LEGO.com says "This 2-in-1 construction toy features
Emmet’s home which can be rebuilt into a rocket."
All of the key information is there to determine that the main model is the house
and the alternate model is the rescue rocket. Based on that determination, the
instruction manual for the house takes precedence.
| | This is NOT a case where there is an obvious primary build of the minifigure,
with a side picture showing an alternative build. (Like a character that has
both a helmet and hair, where one is the primary build, and the other is an alternative
for play purposes.) No, this is outright two separate minifigures that just happen
to use common parts. This is a very different case than just about any other
situation.
|
It cannot be two separate minifigures, because there is only one tail for Unikitty
in the set, as well as only one set of ears, one horn, and one headband plate.
Therefore, we have to make a decision about what minifigure gets added to the
set for now. That minifigure was determined based on the above data that I listed.
In the future, when the "Minifigs:" section of an inventory will hopefully just
be an "Assemblies:" section which includes other assembled counterparts, two
different assemblies of parts can be added. However, we are nowhere close to
that.
The admins can discuss this situation some more, but I don't believe we will
come to a different decision at this time.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | mjwest83 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Questions about Unikitty / Counterparts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | But for all other sets, we've decided one entry is enough. To allow more
entries like this would create a precedent with huge implications. So your pending
entries will be rejected in a few days.
|
In regards to the two Unikitties in set , if you only want to list
one of them, fine. But which one? The decision is totally arbitrary. The box
itself is effectively two separate presentations. It doesn't have a front
and back, so much as two fronts. If you look at the instructions, they do NOT
have numbers. Instead it has two equal, independent instruction books. Really,
this set is two completely independent sets that happen to use the same parts.
As such, choosing just one of those Unikitties is a completely arbitrary decision,
and it can be argued that either one should be the primary.
This is NOT a case where there is an obvious primary build of the minifigure,
with a side picture showing an alternative build. (Like a character that has
both a helmet and hair, where one is the primary build, and the other is an alternative
for play purposes.) No, this is outright two separate minifigures that just happen
to use common parts. This is a very different case than just about any other
situation.
Also, if they can't be listed as counter-parts, how are they supposed to
be sold. It is flat out the case that this minifigure will be sold as a minifigure,
whether it has a specific listing or not. There are only two ways to do so: one
is as a custom figure (which is pointless) and the other is as an incomplete
set (which is what will be done). When listed as an incomplete set, this pollutes
the averages on which so much stuff is based. When it is such a small part of
the set, that can have a very over-sized impact on those averages. By allowing
the counterpart figure, you avoid those issues.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 02:39 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | I suggest adding names and titles that have "Type 1", "Type 2", etc. in them
to the project. Those terms are useless.
|
I completely agree.
But I also know from experience that bundling too many things in together is
not conducive to finishing things. So I may make this a separate project. One
way or the other, it is needed.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 21:26 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | According to the new standard for "difference types" the difference has to be
related to the way a part functions, not just cosmetic differences. So with
that rule, there would be only one entry for this hat.
|
I think there you are talking about run change things. Minor adjustments to
a mold to use less plastic or something that don't change its function at
all don't make "a difference". But a change of design on a hat makes it
a new hat.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | I have about 98% of the Harry Potter sets if you want to use that for year of
change or verification on that hat. I'm willing to look at them and report
what I find.
|
I'm content to let the mad geniuses of catalog control sort out the catalog.
I'm just documenting the differences I can find in the handful of hats I
have.
Regardless of whatever else, the presence of the prong on some hats and the absence
on others I would think constitutes a different mold, and the supercollectors
may want to note the differences. But, again, I'm content to let the catmins
sort all that out.
If you want to get really crazy, the undersides of the brims also exhibit differences
under the magnifying glass. Some are smooth, some have a pebbled inner and outer
ring, some have an inner ring with parallel striations instead of pebbling, a
couple have a narrow band of striations in an otherwise smooth inner ring. The
subtleties are kind of endless.
For whatever it's worth, though, mine are:
Black 90460: fine pebbling overall
Black: smooth cone, pebbled brim, with prong,
Black: slightly pebbled cone, pebbled brim, with prong,
Blue, Purple, Green: slightly pebbled cone, definitely pebbled brim, with prong
Dark Green, Dark Green with dragon decoration: definitely pebbled cone and brim,
no prong
Tan: slightly pebbled cone, definitely pebbled brim, no prong
Light Purple: cone too beat up to tell if it's smooth or slightly pebbled,
definitely pebbled brim, with prong
The dark green ones and the 90460 are pretty much pristine; the others are old
and worn. Your mileage may vary.
My sample size is small, so additional data is probably warranted if the admins
want to try to make sense of it.
I just updated the hats page with closeups. Don't know if you saw that version
or the earlier no-closeups version.
My opinion otherwise though is that using renders instead of photographs for
the parts is misleading for the collector.
Did I mention: The page cannot be displayed because an internal server error
has occurred.
|
|
| Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 19:55 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
According to the new standard for "difference types" the difference has to be
related to the way a part functions, not just cosmetic differences. So with
that rule, there would be only one entry for this hat.
I don't know if that rule applies to minifig categories, but I guess it depends
on how far down the "collector's details" rabbit hole you want to go.  .
I have about 98% of the Harry Potter sets if you want to use that for year of
change or verification on that hat. I'm willing to look at them and report
what I find.
HTH
Donna
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 19:10 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I reformatted a BUNCH of road signs with type 1 and type 2 bases. They should
perhaps be (xxxx / xxxx) like tire combinations?
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | I suggest adding names and titles that have "Type 1", "Type 2", etc. in them
to the project. Those terms are useless.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We are finally making serious headway with the catalog backlog. The catalog
change requests queue is cleared out.
In the spirit of trying to ensure that the Catalog Roadmap is not just something
to look at, I am continuing with the goal of moving through one project each
month. We have essentially had a January project (flesh to nougat) and there
is a new project starting today for February:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
What is this project?
This project involves accurately describing the differences between early (old)
versions of an item and later (new) versions. We need this for two reasons:
1. Using the words "old" and "new" were easy ways to avoid having to describe
actual differences between items. Set numbers in minifigure titles performed
the same function, which is why they were removed.
2. When a third version of an item appears, the old/new descriptors are useless.
Similar items should be described by their differences (usually the way in which
the later version is different from the earlier version).
There are around 500-1000 items expected to be affected by this project.
How can members contribute?
For the immediate moment, members may contribute by submitting title change requests.
I'm not sure how we're going to do item numbers yet, so hold off on
those. If you're not confident that you know exactly what this project entails
or need clarification on a specific issue, then please ask before submitting
a request.
For the immediate moment, ignore the additional topic bundled with this project
(looking at the use of with/without in titles). We may be able to include that,
or it may need to be made its own project. This project should also look at
the use of early/later descriptors since they serve the same function as the
terms old/new.
The goal is to wrap this up by the end of February. Of course, we also have
catalog work still to do and that takes precedence over projects - so this may
run over schedule.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I suggest adding names and titles that have "Type 1", "Type 2", etc. in them
to the project. Those terms are useless.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We are finally making serious headway with the catalog backlog. The catalog
change requests queue is cleared out.
In the spirit of trying to ensure that the Catalog Roadmap is not just something
to look at, I am continuing with the goal of moving through one project each
month. We have essentially had a January project (flesh to nougat) and there
is a new project starting today for February:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
What is this project?
This project involves accurately describing the differences between early (old)
versions of an item and later (new) versions. We need this for two reasons:
1. Using the words "old" and "new" were easy ways to avoid having to describe
actual differences between items. Set numbers in minifigure titles performed
the same function, which is why they were removed.
2. When a third version of an item appears, the old/new descriptors are useless.
Similar items should be described by their differences (usually the way in which
the later version is different from the earlier version).
There are around 500-1000 items expected to be affected by this project.
How can members contribute?
For the immediate moment, members may contribute by submitting title change requests.
I'm not sure how we're going to do item numbers yet, so hold off on
those. If you're not confident that you know exactly what this project entails
or need clarification on a specific issue, then please ask before submitting
a request.
For the immediate moment, ignore the additional topic bundled with this project
(looking at the use of with/without in titles). We may be able to include that,
or it may need to be made its own project. This project should also look at
the use of early/later descriptors since they serve the same function as the
terms old/new.
The goal is to wrap this up by the end of February. Of course, we also have
catalog work still to do and that takes precedence over projects - so this may
run over schedule.
|
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
So like we would change this to "NBA Jason Kidd, Dark Blue Jersey Nets #5", right?
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Sure! I'll play along...
I am not convinced that 90460 is really a new version of 6131.
|
I don't know which number to ascribe to which hat, but there are hat differences.
http://v4ei.com/brickref/wizard-hats.php
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 106 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Sure! I'll play along...
I am not convinced that 90460 is really a new version of 6131.
They look the same and LEGO uses the same thumbnail image for both. The small
image in Dark Green that I submitted for 90460 was back in the days before I
knew what I was doing. I cannot confirm the part number or what set it was from.
(I guess we all start somewhere!)
Anyway, I would like to see convincing side by side proof that they are significantly
different even if they have different mold numbers. I have not found any molded
with 90460. My Witch from Series 2 has been played with so I cannot confirm it
there either.
I am open to hearing any ideas or missing information about this!
|
I've got a question, Jen...
When are you going to arrive at the same conclusion that StormChaser already
has, that the BL catalog needs those like you (passion for, and knowledge of
the catalog process) and rejoin the team?
It is abundantly clear, that like Robert, you care and are impassioned about
BrickLink's catalog construction.
Consider with those already in place, and you (maybe a few others I can think
of) it would be the makings of a BL Catalog Dream Team.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Sure! I'll play along...
I am not convinced that 90460 is really a new version of 6131.
They look the same and LEGO uses the same thumbnail image for both. The small
image in Dark Green that I submitted for 90460 was back in the days before I
knew what I was doing. I cannot confirm the part number or what set it was from.
(I guess we all start somewhere!)
Anyway, I would like to see convincing side by side proof that they are significantly
different even if they have different mold numbers. I have not found any molded
with 90460. My Witch from Series 2 has been played with so I cannot confirm it
there either.
I am open to hearing any ideas or missing information about this!
Thanks,
Jen
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 14:45 | | Subject: | February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 243 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| We are finally making serious headway with the catalog backlog. The catalog
change requests queue is cleared out.
In the spirit of trying to ensure that the Catalog Roadmap is not just something
to look at, I am continuing with the goal of moving through one project each
month. We have essentially had a January project (flesh to nougat) and there
is a new project starting today for February:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
What is this project?
This project involves accurately describing the differences between early (old)
versions of an item and later (new) versions. We need this for two reasons:
1. Using the words "old" and "new" were easy ways to avoid having to describe
actual differences between items. Set numbers in minifigure titles performed
the same function, which is why they were removed.
2. When a third version of an item appears, the old/new descriptors are useless.
Similar items should be described by their differences (usually the way in which
the later version is different from the earlier version).
There are around 500-1000 items expected to be affected by this project.
How can members contribute?
For the immediate moment, members may contribute by submitting title change requests.
I'm not sure how we're going to do item numbers yet, so hold off on
those. If you're not confident that you know exactly what this project entails
or need clarification on a specific issue, then please ask before submitting
a request.
For the immediate moment, ignore the additional topic bundled with this project
(looking at the use of with/without in titles). We may be able to include that,
or it may need to be made its own project. This project should also look at
the use of early/later descriptors since they serve the same function as the
terms old/new.
The goal is to wrap this up by the end of February. Of course, we also have
catalog work still to do and that takes precedence over projects - so this may
run over schedule.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
I have also third variant 28697 not frosted. It looks like 30374 but has new
number molded on it. Checked under very high magnification.
|
...and an unnumbered version...
pic updated.
|
Yep. The original bars had no markings on them at all.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
I have also third variant 28697 not frosted. It looks like 30374 but has new
number molded on it. Checked under very high magnification.
|
...and an unnumbered version...
pic updated.
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
I have also third variant 28697 not frosted. It looks like 30374 but has new
number molded on it. Checked under very high magnification.
|
P.S. with this new number 28697 there is also trans red, trans neon green and
trans purple
I have trans purple molded 28697 from this set
and it is not frosted.
Have no idea why only trans light blue is affected.
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
I have also third variant 28697 not frosted. It looks like 30374 but has new
number molded on it. Checked under very high magnification.
|
|
|
| Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | Found some frosted trans-light-blue 1x4 bars in a set recently and I'm not
comfortable mixing them with my current inventory. They are quite different and
I don't think a customer who orders several would be happy getting a mixture.
The additional notes state:
"Alternate item number 28697 is used for transparent colors. This mold variant
has no bubbles and number 28697 molded on it. It has been found in two variations
clear and frosted as showed on additional images."
So it seems the catalog admins are aware of the difference and have decided not
to reflect it in the catalog here? Personally I think this is a mold variation
worth recognizing.
|
I agree. I had about 4000 of the old kind, and went to the Lego store to get
1000 more to finish a MOC. They only had the new frosted kind, which would look
very out of place next to the ones I already had, so I had to find them elsewhere.
For sellers, these should be easy to separate. I'd also like to see the rounded
vs. flat ends separated in the catalog but that may be more difficult 
|
|
| Author: | Brick.Door | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 10:39 | | Subject: | 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Found some frosted trans-light-blue 1x4 bars in a set recently and I'm not
comfortable mixing them with my current inventory. They are quite different and
I don't think a customer who orders several would be happy getting a mixture.
The additional notes state:
"Alternate item number 28697 is used for transparent colors. This mold variant
has no bubbles and number 28697 molded on it. It has been found in two variations
clear and frosted as showed on additional images."
So it seems the catalog admins are aware of the difference and have decided not
to reflect it in the catalog here? Personally I think this is a mold variation
worth recognizing.
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 09:08 | | Subject: | Re: The 6x6 tiles in 10227 B-Wing | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Anyone knows if those tiles are flat or they have a shiny finish?
Thank you
|
6 x 6 tiles have a matte finish.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Thank you Randy!
|
| Author: | doolallytap | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 06:42 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Identify the torso assembly and then you can see which minifigs it is part of
in the 'item appears in' look up the minifigs that it relates to, then
part out that minif and you will see all the parts required.
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 18:16 | | Subject: | Re: The 6x6 tiles in 10227 B-Wing | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Anyone knows if those tiles are flat or they have a shiny finish?
Thank you
|
6 x 6 tiles have a matte finish.
Cheers,
Randy
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 16:52 | | Subject: | The 6x6 tiles in 10227 B-Wing | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Anyone knows if those tiles are flat or they have a shiny finish?
Thank you
|
| Author: | apple_brick | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 06:19 | | Subject: | Re: catalogue problem - zero lots showing up | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | | | | It may have to do with the software they use to upload and sync their inventory.
This shouldn't be possible, however. Zero QTY lots should only be retained
in a stockroom.
|
|
Hi Russelm
All our zero qty lots are in stockroom. So seems like a BL bug.
|
| Author: | apple_brick | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 06:10 | | Subject: | Re: catalogue problem - zero lots showing up | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Hi Russell,
Someone just pointed me to this topic, which i never saw earlier.
Can this be the reason that lots are 'disappearing' from our inventory?
That would be a bad thing to do i think. Can you confirm this?
Today i noticed a lot of older regular items have been removed / or renewed with
a different Lot Id. That's causing issues on our side.
Maybee you can contact us, so we can discuss this?
Regards,
Rick
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 03:44 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, anathema writes:
| | The same applies to set 8843, too - I have the supplemental sheet (which I'll
add in the next few days when I get it scanned) and the updated version of the
instructions.
|
BrickLink does not have any record in the inventory of this set of a redesign.
However, I have added a note to the instructions anyway:
You might see about updating the set inventory when you get a minute.
|
|
| Author: | anathema | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 03:39 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, anathema writes:
| | Could you also add a note to say that there are two versions of the instruction
booklet too, please? The booklet was updated to incorporate the changes from
the supplemental sheet.
|
Well . . . okay. You talked me into it. You have your note.
|
Thanks!
The same applies to set 8843, too - I have the supplemental sheet (which I'll
add in the next few days when I get it scanned) and the updated version of the
instructions.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 03:11 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, anathema writes:
| | Could you also add a note to say that there are two versions of the instruction
booklet too, please? The booklet was updated to incorporate the changes from
the supplemental sheet.
|
Well . . . okay. You talked me into it. You have your note.
|
|
| Author: | anathema | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 03:05 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | The old dragster set has a white correction sheet for step 16. It has a part
number on the page that doesn't show up in searches (120356).
Am I missing the entry somewhere? If not, should an entry exist? Or a note with
the instructions entry? (I could have sworn I had seen a note about this previously...)
Thanks!!
|
The inventory does show that the set was redesigned during production. Please
upload a scan of the correction sheet to the instruction entry for the set and
we'll add it as an alternate image.
|
Could you also add a note to say that there are two versions of the instruction
booklet too, please? The booklet was updated to incorporate the changes from
the supplemental sheet.
|
|
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 00:51 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | The old dragster set has a white correction sheet for step 16. It has a part
number on the page that doesn't show up in searches (120356).
Am I missing the entry somewhere? If not, should an entry exist? Or a note with
the instructions entry? (I could have sworn I had seen a note about this previously...)
Thanks!!
|
The inventory does show that the set was redesigned during production. Please
upload a scan of the correction sheet to the instruction entry for the set and
we'll add it as an alternate image.
|
Sweet! Its late here, so I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
Thanks!!
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 00:40 | | Subject: | Re: Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | The old dragster set has a white correction sheet for step 16. It has a part
number on the page that doesn't show up in searches (120356).
Am I missing the entry somewhere? If not, should an entry exist? Or a note with
the instructions entry? (I could have sworn I had seen a note about this previously...)
Thanks!!
|
The inventory does show that the set was redesigned during production. Please
upload a scan of the correction sheet to the instruction entry for the set and
we'll add it as an alternate image.
|
|
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2020 00:36 | | Subject: | Correction sheet for set 8847 | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The old dragster set has a white correction sheet for step 16. It has a part
number on the page that doesn't show up in searches (120356).
Am I missing the entry somewhere? If not, should an entry exist? Or a note with
the instructions entry? (I could have sworn I had seen a note about this previously...)
Thanks!!
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 18:23 | | Subject: | Re: Shadow Trooper | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
Interesting, more than ten years and almost nobody noticed it.
|
People noticed...
With respect to you personally Marek, for myself and let’s say a group
of Lego Star Wars Collectors that collaborate, we’ve stopped attempts to correct
or add to the BL catalog some years back, when our continued efforts were rejected
or dismissed out of hand, by those placed into those positions at the time, that
could do just that without consideration.
There’s more than a few corrections needed to the Stars Wars portion of the BL
catalog. It’s too bad, such poor judgement in personnel had been used in the
past. Now, some in the know (through painstaking research) that had once cared,
don’t.
That’s all that I would like to say, but should not! While simultaneously
disavowing that which I would like to say, and shouldn't - How’s that
for equivocating
On a serious note, good job, Marek! Now to the next, there’s plenty You are
invaluable to the current catalog team, IMHO of course.
|
If you know that the current catalog admins are open to investigating and adding
these minifigs and you have knowledge of other minifigs that need to be corrected,
would you be willing to re-share that information with the current admins so
that the catalog can be more accurate?
|
Sure, Josh, I could and would for the current admin. In my book they are the
best we've seen here. Truly gifted and dedicated people, with strong guidance
from Russell.
But let me ask you, why is it needed? Given that TLG are in possession of the
site and it's catalog's information. They can spin whatever yarn they'd
like. In other words, get it straight from the horse's mouth. It's a
gift for you purest, if played right.
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 17:58 | | Subject: | Re: Shadow Trooper | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
Interesting, more than ten years and almost nobody noticed it.
|
People noticed...
With respect to you personally Marek, for myself and let’s say a group
of Lego Star Wars Collectors that collaborate, we’ve stopped attempts to correct
or add to the BL catalog some years back, when our continued efforts were rejected
or dismissed out of hand, by those placed into those positions at the time, that
could do just that without consideration.
There’s more than a few corrections needed to the Stars Wars portion of the BL
catalog. It’s too bad, such poor judgement in personnel had been used in the
past. Now, some in the know (through painstaking research) that had once cared,
don’t.
That’s all that I would like to say, but should not! While simultaneously
disavowing that which I would like to say, and shouldn't - How’s that
for equivocating
On a serious note, good job, Marek! Now to the next, there’s plenty You are
invaluable to the current catalog team, IMHO of course.
|
If you know that the current catalog admins are open to investigating and adding
these minifigs and you have knowledge of other minifigs that need to be corrected,
would you be willing to re-share that information with the current admins so
that the catalog can be more accurate?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: Shadow Trooper | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
Interesting, more than ten years and almost nobody noticed it.
|
People noticed...
With respect to you personally Marek, for myself and let’s say a group
of Lego Star Wars Collectors that collaborate, we’ve stopped attempts to correct
or add to the BL catalog some years back, when our continued efforts were rejected
or dismissed out of hand, by those placed into those positions at the time, that
could do just that without consideration.
There’s more than a few corrections needed to the Stars Wars portion of the BL
catalog. It’s too bad, such poor judgement in personnel had been used in the
past. Now, some in the know (through painstaking research) that had once cared,
don’t.
That’s all that I would like to say, but should not! While simultaneously
disavowing that which I would like to say, and shouldn't - How’s that
for equivocating
On a serious note, good job, Marek! Now to the next, there’s plenty You are
invaluable to the current catalog team, IMHO of course.
|
Thank you
Some of them ar know just not yet distinguished and they are here
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2488
under paragraph
Known Print Variants Not Distinguished
some examples
there are notes about them in the catalog
but in this case there wasn't even a note about it.
|
Interesting choices to start with, Marek!
Nonetheless, as to your first example: the full triangle is the anomaly. It was
initially intended as full triangle but as production produced a flawed triangle,
it was quickly corrected (wrongly in some minds) to the commonly seen trapezoid
shape. So, what’s the norm? I couldn’t say, it’s a matter of perspective. However,
the quantity of fully 'faulty' triangle produced, is far less than that
of the corrected trapezoid version.
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Shadow Trooper | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
Interesting, more than ten years and almost nobody noticed it.
|
People noticed...
With respect to you personally Marek, for myself and let’s say a group
of Lego Star Wars Collectors that collaborate, we’ve stopped attempts to correct
or add to the BL catalog some years back, when our continued efforts were rejected
or dismissed out of hand, by those placed into those positions at the time, that
could do just that without consideration.
There’s more than a few corrections needed to the Stars Wars portion of the BL
catalog. It’s too bad, such poor judgement in personnel had been used in the
past. Now, some in the know (through painstaking research) that had once cared,
don’t.
That’s all that I would like to say, but should not! While simultaneously
disavowing that which I would like to say, and shouldn't - How’s that
for equivocating
On a serious note, good job, Marek! Now to the next, there’s plenty You are
invaluable to the current catalog team, IMHO of course.
|
Thank you
Some of them ar know just not yet distinguished and they are here
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2488
under paragraph
Known Print Variants Not Distinguished
some examples
there are notes about them in the catalog
but in this case there wasn't even a note about it.
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Shadow Trooper | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
Interesting, more than ten years and almost nobody noticed it.
|
People noticed...
With respect to you personally Marek, for myself and let’s say a group
of Lego Star Wars Collectors that collaborate, we’ve stopped attempts to correct
or add to the BL catalog some years back, when our continued efforts were rejected
or dismissed out of hand, by those placed into those positions at the time, that
could do just that without consideration.
There’s more than a few corrections needed to the Stars Wars portion of the BL
catalog. It’s too bad, such poor judgement in personnel had been used in the
past. Now, some in the know (through painstaking research) that had once cared,
don’t.
That’s all that I would like to say, but should not! While simultaneously
disavowing that which I would like to say, and shouldn't - How’s that
for equivocating
On a serious note, good job, Marek! Now to the next, there’s plenty You are
invaluable to the current catalog team, IMHO of course.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Help, manganschlamm writes:
| | When I searched for the term "flesh", the search returned only custom parts.
So it appears that at least the descriptions of the legit parts have been updated.
|
Yes, as the Catalog Roadmap shows, this project is now complete:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
|
| Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Help, mfav writes:
| | In Help, Stonemonkey1974 writes:
Note "nougat/flesh" hasn't been updated since the apocalypse, and Anders
is away for a week.
|
When I searched for the term "flesh", the search returned only custom parts.
So it appears that at least the descriptions of the legit parts have been updated.
|
| Author: | Stonemonkey1974 | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Help, mfav writes:
| | In Help, Stonemonkey1974 writes:
Note "nougat/flesh" hasn't been updated since the apocalypse, and Anders
is away for a week.
|
Good point, thx.
The NOUGPOCALYPSE!!!
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Help, Stonemonkey1974 writes:
Note "nougat/flesh" hasn't been updated since the apocalypse, and Anders
is away for a week.
|
| Author: | Stonemonkey1974 | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Try
http://avbricks.no/#/avSearch
In Help, Grinjer1 writes:
| | I have a batch of incomplete minifigures. I need help identifying them to find
out what parts I need to complete them. I seem to remember there were a couple
of sites which had this information but I can't remember the names.
Can anyone help please?
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
