Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 20:04 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?
Should it be renamed?
|
It has been renamed.
|
| Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 19:58 | | Subject: | Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Can anyone tell me why is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?
Should it be renamed?
|
 |
| Author: | Captain.M | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 18:02 | | Subject: | Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I had a few of these, and because I noticed the anti-stud I also figured it might
be useful for MOC builders, so I put it in my store. A couple have sold, ages
ago, now only 1 left. I did message the buyer to make sure they knew what they
were buying. They were happy (they also bought some shurikens at the same time).
I don't know if they were actively looking for the sprue, maybe they just
wanted to make a set 100% complete once they saw the sprue for sale alongside
the shurikens. Would they have found them if they were listed under their own
entry in the catalogue? Who can say. Maybe my last one will never sell if it
is given a separate sprue designation in the catalogue and folks don't know
to look for it. But upon finding your post, my pedantic sense of order and completeness
immediately says "Yes, add it to the catalogue!" (even if it's to my own
detriment).
Just my 2 cents. I will leave it up to those more wise than I to decide.
Cheers
In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 09:19 | | Subject: | Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?
David
|
I don't think so, but I'm unaware of another sprue that can actually
go on a stud.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 17:55 | | Subject: | Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?
|
It would at least limit the number of people not finding it in the catalogue.
 
|
|
| Author: | Jblotempio | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 17:49 | | Subject: | Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?
David
|
It appears in over 20 Ninjago sets, doesn't it? I see no reason why you
would not list it. I see those teeny screwdrivers listed by themselves, and in
fact, have bought one. Jerri
|
|
| Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 17:37 | | Subject: | Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?
David
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 16:03 | | Subject: | Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part? | | Viewed: | 154 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?
|
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 09:28 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Thankfully Axaday jumped in and added the new variant so I don't have to
deal with the description anymore. 
[p=3626d]
I'm not sure about the part number, though. Officially, the new mold has
nothing to do with 3626 and in similar cases (where a new mold number is known)
like
or
BL used to take the official number instead of the previous one +letter.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Here's my plan to handle the restructuring, which is a combination of ideas
from everyone:
For Existing Duplicate Catalog Entries:
1. Stickers that appear in multiple sets will have a new catalog entry
created. Then all existing duplicate entries will be merged into the new entry.
2. Item numbers for the new catalog entries will be formatted like this:
multistk001, multistk002, multistk003, etc.
3. Item titles for new entries will be formatted as follows. When the
sticker appears in three or fewer sets, then "Sticker Sheet for Multiple Sets
- 1001, 1002, 1003." When the sheet appears in more than three sets (there are
only 19 of these): "Sticker Sheet for Multiple Sets, Town, Fish and Coral."
4. N/A and International sticker sheet entries will be merged when there
are no apparent differences beyond the standard N/A / International differences.
5. Where significant differences exist between sticker sheets, such as
color differences in the stickers themselves, the duplicate entries will be retained.
For All Sticker Sheet Entries:
1. PCCs for all sticker sheets will be moved from the item title to the
PCC field. Item numbers will be retained in their current place in the titles.
2. Item titles for all sticker sheets will be changed from the format
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."
If anyone has suggestions for this plan or sees where it may encounter problems,
please say something. Otherwise, we'll move into the action phase during
the upcoming week.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 02:55 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Below are the issues additionally identified in this thread:
1. The word "Sheet" should be added to catalog entries.
I agree and we will make this part of the project. So all items will go from
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."
2. Incomplete sticker sheets should not be allowed to be listed.
CAs cannot control this, nor can we force sellers to state if the sticker sheet
is complete or incomplete.
3. We should use the item number for sticker sheets instead of placing the
item number in the title.
Not a bad idea, but we're trying to accomplish this with as little disruption
as possible. This idea would require renumbering every single sticker sheet,
which is not feasible. Also, many early sticker sheets did not have an item
number, so this would be an inconsistent approach.
4. Sticker sheets should not be considered a part, but should instead be
tied to set entries like original boxes and set instructions are.
This idea would create problems because some sticker sheets appear in multiple
sets. Also, tying instructions and original boxes to set entries creates its
own problems. Also, this would require coding from the site and we know we won't
get that.
5. Background color should be required for sticker sheets.
For this, I don't think so. I get that it would be convenient for some users,
but our image scans of sticker sheets are continually improving. A proper scan
will show the background color and this is probably the best way to handle this
issue.
6. Sticker sheets should be titled with descriptions of most or all of the
stickers that appear thereon.
I agree that this would make searching easier, but it would also be fairly difficult
to accomplish properly with the system we now have. This isn't a bad idea,
but it would be more appropriate for some kind of tag system if we ever get it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 01:11 | | Subject: | Re: Parts 89650 & 60153 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 69transamman writes:
| | For consistency shouldn't parts 89650 & 61053 have separate listings, they differ from each other
|
Please read this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2020 00:18 | | Subject: | Parts 89650 & 60153 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The catalog has separate listing for parts 89652 & 60176, the only difference
being the open lower axle holes. For consistency shouldn't parts 89650 &
61053 have separate listings, they differ in the same way from each other.
Howard
|
|
|
| Author: | bouncingbear | | Posted: | Mar 13, 2020 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Heartbricker writes:
| | In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:
| | Hello
We have 2 sets with faulty print box of Pet Shop (front of box shows 1332 pieces
vs 2032 official) - as relative new to selling appreciate help how best to put
it into the store inventory? Should it be a custom item, or should it be 10218-1
with custom image?
Many thanks in advance
|
That’s interesting, do you have pictures of the boxes?
If it’s sealed I would list it as 10218-1 with custom picture and additional
notes describing the error.
Where did you buy them? Was the error presented to you before you bought the
sets?
|
Hi, Bought in Singapore & did not know at time of purchase - have kept them ever
since. Once get round to taking pictures will upload (probably once I set up
dropbox to store photos).
Thanks
|
|
| Author: | bouncingbear | | Posted: | Mar 13, 2020 00:11 | | Subject: | Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Cob writes:
Thanks that helpful - I like the idea of the dropbox link
Cheers
|
|
| Author: | amthatkindoforc | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | We would like the naming convention to be somewhat indicative of the form of
the obstruction for unambiguous recognition. I fear using "one bar" or "two holes"
leaves us vulnerable to too many potential design changes down the line. I'm
attaching a diagram with labels, all of which are accurate but few which are
unique and unambiguous.
|
I understand the concern. I like what you've done with describing the bars
as letters, and I believe we should use that as one part of the naming convention.
Unfortunately it doesn't cover the potential cases on the right. 
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
|
So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:
1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.
2. Create a new 3626d entry.
I don't have any preference here. What do others think?
|
I also prefer different entries so I will create a new head entry tomorrow. Any
suggestions how to name it? It should not be too long to leave room for pattern
descriptions.
In the meantime I have found the new type also in and .
So maybe the latest inventories with transparent heads need to be checked again?
|
Yes, we will try and contact all the submitter's of inventories since December
that contained transparent heads.
Thanks for catching this early.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, amthatkindoforc writes:
| | For the former:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 1 Bar
For the latter:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 2 Hole
|
I'd suggest the naming convention requires some additional consideration.
We would like the naming convention to be somewhat indicative of the form of
the obstruction for unambiguous recognition. I fear using "one bar" or "two holes"
leaves us vulnerable to too many potential design changes down the line. I'm
attaching a diagram with labels, all of which are accurate but few which are
unique and unambiguous.
With this in mind, I suggest further discussion.
|
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | Hi everyone,
my set came with a new minifigure head type with two holes and new
number 28621. It is already listed at Brickset:
https://brickset.com/parts/design-28621
Looks like the new mold is only used for transparent heads. All three trans-neon
green heads (1x plain, 2x printed) in my set are the new type while all other
heads are 3626c.
How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
Regards,
Jonas
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1115430
I thought maybe they had found an old mould and started reusing it but looks
a different bar width to the one I found at the link above which is from
|
|
| Author: | amthatkindoforc | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | I also prefer different entries so I will create a new head entry tomorrow. Any
suggestions how to name it? It should not be too long to leave room for pattern
descriptions.
|
Depends on which you want to emphasize: the bar down the middle, or the 2 holes.
I kept the "Blocked Open Stud" string so people searching would find both the
current form and this variant.
For the former:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 1 Bar
For the latter:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 2 Hole
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
|
So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:
1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.
2. Create a new 3626d entry.
I don't have any preference here. What do others think?
|
I also prefer different entries so I will create a new head entry tomorrow. Any
suggestions how to name it? It should not be too long to leave room for pattern
descriptions.
In the meantime I have found the new type also in and .
So maybe the latest inventories with transparent heads need to be checked again?
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think this is the situation we're in
right now. Some are thought of "one way" and some are thought of "another way".
The "description" labelling might be one way where the "stud dimensions" labelling
might be another way, and the "shipping dimensions" a third way...
It gets real messy real fast.
I'm up to a potential database field count of 15 so far...
I know: roadmap 36.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Sure it does. You just add the second part number as an alternate item number
and put both Element IDs in two separate PCC slots. In this case, the vendor
number (the 140413A or 134071A) don't matter, but on some they will.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
|
Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.
|
The BrickLink item number/part number (or LEGO Design ID) is the one before the
slash and the BrickLink PCC (or LEGO Element ID) is the one after the slash.
That is exactly what I said above in my statement.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Right Randy, I misread!
|
|
| Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 12:29 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.
David
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
