Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Dino  | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Nougat is the new Flesh | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, yapke writes:
| | Hello,
It's remarkable quit now, about the Nougat colours! 
With all do of respect and comprehension about the decision to change the name
from Flesh to Nougat...
I didn't follow all those threads and discussions/remark, some were so funny
I couldn't stop laugh about it...
But I assume it has to be one of the most controversial and humorous decision
made by BrickLink or Lego, isn't it?
Anyway, we can presume that most BL members have accepted (or learned to deal
with it) the name change of the colour! 
Now is the question: which colour next ???
Greetings, Yannick
|
Do you know North Korea?
The same is here. Do not say anything against a decision by the Admins!
|
 |
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2020 03:37 | | Subject: | Re: Nougat is the new Flesh | | Viewed: | 129 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, Admin_Russell writes:
| | For those who may have missed this recent change, we have decided to change the
name "Flesh" to another color name in the BrickLink catalog. I'm not going
to get into the reasons why this was done - the purpose here is to inform you
of what the changes were and how they may affect your BrickLink user experience.
The changes are 5 in number:
1. Light Flesh becomes Light Nougat
2. Flesh becomes Nougat
3. Medium Dark Flesh becomes Medium Nougat
4. Dark Flesh becomes Medium Brown
5. Dark Nougat is added to the BrickLink catalog, which is currently included
with BrickLink's Earth Orange.
Changes to the color names in Item Names are forthcoming. No changes to inventories
are necessary except to give Dark Nougat a place in the system.
How this may effect you:
1. If you rely on any of BrickLink's list pages that can be sorted by color
(set inventory, catalog search, catalog item detail page, etc.) some items may
be listed in a different order.
2. If you have your physical parts inventory sorted by color, you may need to
relabel. Dark Flesh is relatively rare, but if you have it, you will need to
change the labels to Medium Brown. That's the tough one, although renaming
it to a type of brown is a big step in the right direction.
3. If you perchance have the type of Earth Orange from the early 2000's,
you should separate out these parts and relist them under Dark Nougat. This color
is retired and quite rare.
Thanks to our BrickLink color enthusiasts for their input. They've given
invaluable advice over the years and we're happy they were willing to give
some advice this time around as well.
|
The first step....
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2020 03:40 | | Subject: | Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, foxweasle writes:
| | I thought I would post this Discussion to bring to the members awareness of a
possible misinterpretation of the Inventory list of Set 75248 Star Wars Resistance
A-Wing Starfighter. The inventory is listed correct as I see it. I just opened
a sealed complete set and confirmed the Inventory. The only Item in Question
is Part 15303 Trans-Red Bar 8L with round End (Spring Shooter Dart). In the Instructions
it does show 3 Items are used but only 2 are actually used in the set. At first
I would think the 3rd piece would be considered an extra part, but since all
three are listed in step 101 the last Instruction step. The Inventory should
remain unchanged.
|
All three are listed. But only two were used. There is no place for the third
one.
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
| | In Catalog, Classicsmiley writes:
| | In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
It just hasn't been added to Bricks & Pieces yet. 6286835 is indeed 28870
in black. It comes in the new Bookshop set.
|
I see but the bookstore isnt parted out on BL yet so op has to wait for that
(sadly BL is the worst side speed wise when it comes to adding inventories...)
|
Maybe it will be better if TLG uses its own admins.
|
Our current admins are in the process of becoming the LEGO Group's own admins.
|
OMG
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
| | In Catalog, Classicsmiley writes:
| | In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
It just hasn't been added to Bricks & Pieces yet. 6286835 is indeed 28870
in black. It comes in the new Bookshop set.
|
I see but the bookstore isnt parted out on BL yet so op has to wait for that
(sadly BL is the worst side speed wise when it comes to adding inventories...)
|
Maybe it will be better if TLG uses its own admins.
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
There are many elements in unknown colors.
|
With PCCs?
|
What is PCC?
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
There are many elements in unknown colors.
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: BRICKS & PIECES availability and price | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Tholwin writes:
| | Hello,
While I favor buying other people's unwanted pieces, I always check the price
of each piece on "BRICKS & PIECES" (Lego website), in an attempt to avoid buying
on bricklink pieces I could get cheaper and brand new from Lego.
This is the reason why I would love to see in bricklink if pieces are available
on "BRICKS & PIECES", and at which price, without having to search.
Best regards
|
When B&P opens a shop here, the prices are included in the price index. If not,
the B&B prices have no business here.
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
I have rewritten that last sentence for you:
"...the philosophy is to follow the pole star of the LEGO Group's practices
(which seldom ever shift) rather than the personal listing whims of Bricklink
sellers."
|
I disagree. There are numerous examples, and neither you nor I can see the future.
Those little pre-packaged accessory packs are a fairly recent example how Lego
changed its production process
| |
I am wondering now whether you read my "reasons.pdf" document I referred to earlier.
In that document, I argue both sides. I have copied this section below:
Reasons to keep separate:
As an organizational principle, every assembly should be reduced to its basic
elements.
I honestly think if this theory had been practical, it would have
been implemented throughout the inventory system long ago. But the fact is,
it’s not practical, and even a cursory observation will show that we are dealing
with a continuum on BL, not an absolute one way or the other.
For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small
wheel assemblies should be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart
easily before Lego added little loops to hold the axles in place. And the wheels
DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed along
with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why?
Because this would be pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled
to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish to only deal with the *whole*
assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not
separated from the torso, hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws,
or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to leave things in
their normal, intended state.
But small wheels [today read: elementary window parts] have somehow been made
an exception of.
|
Lego is a system of parts that are designed to be interchangeable and interlocking
with each other. (How's that for pedantic?)
Describing that system should be our pole star. If it were, then there would
be a bright line on the continuum you describe - are the parts connected using
a "system" connection? Then they should be broken out.
Yes, that would mean motorcycle chassis and wheels (and tires) separately, with
the complete assembly in the counterparts.
I don't understand the shock that seems to cause in people. I think, based
on Rob's comment in his response, it may stem from the desire to have the
part count number on the BL inventory match the one Lego sometimes puts on the
box. But if the parts themselves are our focus, we should stop worrying about
that.
The definition of a "system" connection is all we need to worry about, then.
This is mostly obvious - a screw in a motor casing is not a Lego system connection,
so those parts are not broken out. I think the only refinement needed would be
to include connections that are unique to one particular part form - such as
minifig arms and legs.
The intended use of Lego parts is that they be assembled and reassembled using
a system of interlocking connections. The motorcycle is packaged as one possible
configuration for that particular set, but you can swap the red wheels for clear
ones, the tread tires for smooth ones, or take the wheels off and make a hoverbike.
You can also take the wheels off and attach them to a different type of piece
(the 2x2 plate, a Fabuland trailer). Yes, you can remove a minifig arm from a
torso, but then what else can you attach it to? Only another torso. They are
technically interchangeable with one another, but the type of connection is unique
and not integrated in the system.
So the inventories should reduce assemblies to the point where the parts are
usable within the system. That means taking the 1x1 plates off the sprues and
opening the tool accessory bags. It does not mean prying apart minifig torsos.
The corollary to when to break things down is when to enter them as counterpart
assemblies. Parts that came assembled or attached in the box, but that have
system components which are broken out in the inventory, should be counterpart
assemblies. So should assemblies that are created during the building of the
set which use non-system connections - like stickers on tiles.
It really does not need to be any more complex.
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 08:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
...
| |
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
I'm all in favor of additional functionality, but changes like this one I
do not think are in aid of that goal.
Let's imagine we can add the option for a user to view an inventory in their
choice of two ways, either "as packaged" (with pre-assembled parts appearing
as single parts, etc.) or as a list of all the individual parts. Then the inventory
will need to support the finest granularity of data, which is the individual
part list.
That level of granularity is now present in the 1881 inventory for the door/doorframe
assembly (but not for the windows, currently) as the parts are displayed both
as individual pieces (in the regular section) and as the assembly that (probably)
came in the package (as a counterpart).
However this proposed change removes that extra information that would be needed
to support the kind of functionality we are wishing for. It deletes the entries
for the individual parts and replaces them with an assembly. If the day comes
that we have the kind of functionality you imagine, this change will have to
be undone. Someone will have to go through and "part out" all the assemblies
so that those who wish can see them listed individually.
The same is true of the 1x1 round plates on a sprue and the pre-packaged accessory
sets. If we want to build a truly powerful database, then we need to be thinking
of something like a periodic table of elements. Then the user can choose to view
the data in any way he wants.
We perhaps have an example in front of us: the Stud.io parts menu. It is grouped
along the BL catalog, but it can be searched and organized into folders by the
user. You can view the contents of a set by importing it.
With future functionality in mind, we should be working toward increasing the
granularity of the data rather than decreasing it. We currently have the capability
to put individual parts in the regular section and assemblies in the counterparts,
but we do not have the converse capability - to display the assembly in the regular
section and the individual parts in a separate section.
So given the current constraints of the catalog, and assuming that we want to
move in the direction of more functionality and not less, the prudent thing to
do would be to put individual parts in the regular section and the assemblies
in the counterparts so we preserve the greatest granularity of data. By not doing
so, we are only creating work that will have to be undone in the future, and
that causes inconsistency and loss of clarity in the present.
|
+1
Remember TLG used the parts until they were used up. So both variants could have
been used in one set number.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
