Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
|
Without having both parts to examine, I cannot say. But any differences would
likely be extremely minor.
| | Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general?
|
We haven't updated this page yet, but everything about item numbering is
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
| | 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
|
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
| | I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
|
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
| | I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
|
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
|
 |
| Author: | whoa220 | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | Honestly I think they are the same lego peace but recolered. |
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:06 | | Subject: | Ants | | Viewed: | 219 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 2, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Adding missing items to the catalog | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, aladar123 writes:
| | For those who might have this question.
Do not bother adding, if no photo it will be removed after some time.
|
It's true that we don't typically approve catalog entries without photos.
There are a few exceptions, though. We're currently working on updating
our catalog guidelines and plan to explicitly state those exceptions in the new
guidelines.
The reason we don't add items without photos is because past experience has
repeatedly shown us that we may never get a photo if we don't require one
up front. This happens not only for rare items, but for common items with multiple
for-sale listings.
This is a good example:
It's been in the catalog for 11 years and there are nine different sellers
with the part for sale, but none have sent us an image for the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | mokibricks | | Posted: | May 2, 2020 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Adding missing items to the catalog | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, aladar123 writes:
| | Hi,
I recently bought a holder for trading cards, and it has a list of all the possible
cards (SW Series 2) with their numbers. Does it help if I add all the items to
the catalog? I have a few more where I will also add the images of the cards,
but in many cases, I won't.
Thanks,
Tamas
|
For those who might have this question.
Do not bother adding, if no photo it will be removed after some time.
Tamas
|
|
| Author: | James2506 | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: Why oh why Batman Sh016b | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Thanks for such a long effort and providing other examples. I follow but don’t
agree - I think any change for a new part should equal a new number, but it’s
not up to me!
Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, James2506 writes:
| | I think each variant should get a fresh number. Certainly the faces do even
though the rest of the fig remains the same. It just happened with Mr Freeze
too - the dark Peary grey now has two unique numbers when all that changed was
the neck bracket and weapon.
How do we ask Admins to consider changing the naming first given?
|
I am sure an admin will see this thread.
It's not a for sure thing. They also have to weigh in how it will affect
stores to have the name change. They may have labelled things. Just adding
a or b on the end is much gentler for that.
|
When minfigs assembly is exactly the same but there is just one minior change
in part variant minfigs is classified as variant minfig and gets a or b or c
if there are more variants.
In Batman case all three are the same just one part is in differnt part variant
in sh016 and sh016a and now sh016b is the same assembly as sh016a just cape is
in diffrent part variant. It is a quite common practice (not always consistent,
but I try to keep it consistent)
Minfigs gest new number when assembly is diffrent for example wjhen for this
Batmon would be added totally differnt part
Example with Mr Freeze is good it got nee number as assembly is different, this
minfig has additiona parts so it makes an assembly different.
so few example
assembly the same just the head has different color
assembly the same just cape variant changed
but
new numbers as totally different heads are in there
but when print on the head si only small variation minfig is consider also variant
and gets an a
* | | trn227 (Inv) Overalls with Tools in Pocket, Blue Legs, Red Short Bill Cap, Glasses with Brown Thin Eyebrows
Minifigures: Train |
brown eybrows vs red eyebrows, very minor difference beside that minfigs are
identical
recently added
these have different numbers as they are different assemblies, every one have
additional parts there, but for example if suddenly LEGO would start produce
cupcae in different mold variant and it would be discovered then one with mold
variant of such part would get variant with the same number and added a
when you look through catalog teher really a lot of "a" and "b" variants of minifigs
in very different themes
So important is how significant if change of similar character or minfigs. Slight
change, only different part variant but whole assembly the same. This is minfig
variant with the same number but with a added. Only slight change in prinbt also
only a variant. Significant print change or aditional parts added which makes
it different assembty, new number.
some more examples
only chane of color of the photoreceptor
but here more significant print change
ok there are meny meny more examples 
so numeration of those batmans stays as they are as those minfigs hase the same
assemblies only parts are in different mold variants
normal cape vs spongy cape
type of mask also mold variant
the same here only mask mold change
but here different heads, so different assemblies and new numbers
(btw name should be change here to get rid of type 1, 2 and 3, describtion of
faces exspressions should be here as all heads have different prints like here
for example https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?pg=1&catString=971&catType=M&v=1)
Hope this is more clear now why ve have minfigs variants marked as a nad b
|
|
|
| Author: | BRCook | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 17:44 | | Subject: | Dimensions for instant checkout | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have had some issues with items not having size dimensions (particularly for
newer items - come up as 0x0x0 or ?x?x?).
This has caused me problems with instant checkout because even though there are
no dimensions it is not forcing a quote request (which is what I thought should
happen).
Anyone have any similar experiences or suggestions for a fix (Admins?)
Thanks in advance
Brendan
|
| Author: | skikyssing | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 04:50 | | Subject: | search | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I'm not getting the suggestions in the drop down box when typing in searches
anymore...
It seems that this is for everyone.
Why do you have to change something that works perfectly? 
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Set 1775 alternative stickers | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I've just added [P=4867pb24] in hope that it will be accepted. Here's
a photo of the set. It's not mine, so I can't prove anything about it.
The building instructions are generic.
/Jan
|
Sticker of this set do not show such sticker
so for set
should be added stickered parts which have applied stickers from showed sticker
set and they are already there.
So question is if this set was in variants for other airlines like this one
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catID=67&catXrefLevel=0&catType=S&q=4032&catLike=W
There are 13 version of ser 4032 for diffrent ailines and each one have differebnt
sticker sheet.
So question is does this set also exists in variants for different airlines.
If yes then should be new set entry crated like in 4032 example. But for that
I think proof with boxed specimen would be needed?
Then such stickered part could be added for new set variant but not for current
1775 set.
I found only such informations about set 1775
- Promotional release with TWA and Qantas airlines.
- Also available in the US from LEGO Shop at Home.
I coudn't found any mentiones about promotional release for SAS.
Maybe it is internal release only for employees of SAS Hosting Service as it
is on sticker and they included for them exclusive sticker sheet?
These are my thoughts.
|
|
| Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 09:15 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
Hard to tell for sure without other colors in your photo to compare it to, but
it looks like this to me: https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15210784018
Technically it’s supposed to be Blue, but it’s a harder, more fragile plastic
that looks a bit darker than normal.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead . . . ?
|
No, this project is not dead. We're still continually working on this page
and still planning to make it official on June 1st:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
| Author: | BrickPhaisan | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
He reviewed the entire catalog color by color of this type, and this figure does
not appear in those colors ...
|
|
| Author: | ErwinNL | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:05 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
I am not 100% sure (color in photo) but did you know about: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp
|
| Author: | BrickPhaisan | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:03 | | Subject: | Help with this color | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 07:06 | | Subject: | Set 1775 alternative stickers | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I've just added [P=4867pb24] in hope that it will be accepted. Here's
a photo of the set. It's not mine, so I can't prove anything about it.
The building instructions are generic.
/Jan
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:49 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
I guess if you think about it, LEGO just made lego.com move up one place in the
best LEGO websites.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
I guess it is time to save a "community catalog" again, before the old one is
removed and the re-mapped one becomes the new BL standard.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
The "Minifigs" section in the inventories would need to be renamed, also. This
would go along with having the main item type renamed. We would also have to
figure out where else the term "Minifigs" is in use in any other parts of the
site to have it coincide with these changes. All of these things will require
assistance from the BrickLink team once our plan is finalized.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay thanks Randy I understand but you never know perhaps Lego will one day put
a team together to work on improving theses things
|
Oh yeah. That is definitely the hope!
We would love to revisit these discussions in the future if we were to get developers
assigned to us. However, with the current problems currently cropping up from
some changes that seem to going on behind the scenes, I am less than confident
that the current team at BrickLink are up to the task of completely redesigning
the database and structure of the site which your suggestions would entail.
Thank you for all of your thoughts in this discussion, though. They are very
much appreciated and help to drive us forward.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Looks good to me. The detailed figure classification is much better than a one-sentence-definition
and makes future adjustments easier (hopefully).
Just two thoughts (in addition to Jean's comment):
"Transformed Humans - Humans in another form are figures. A person transformed
into a rat is an example of this distinction and is a figure."
I would leave that out for at least four reasons:
- We would have duplicate catalog entries because the rat
would be a figure in some sets and a part in other sets.
- It was not always clear that the rat is a human in some sets. If you ask me,
the catalog classification should not depend too much on how a story develops.
Otherwise we would always be at risk of misclassifying things just because the
next part of a story hasn't been published yet.
- There is a (minior, but anyway) risk that the classification would be a spoiler
for anyone who don't know the story background yet.
- There is a gray rat in
but it is unknown if it is *the* rat or a normal animal (other versions of Hagrid's
Hut contain normal rats).
"Figure Size - There are currently no restrictions on size or complexity of figures."
I think there should be a restriction so that the content of a set like
cannot be classified as a figure. I would also say that large brick-built figures
which consists of a significant number of parts from a set should not have an
entry under the figures category. After all they would cause similar inventory
problems like Special Assemblies ( https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1188426
). And to have brick-built figures without an inventory is not really an option
(sellers want to check if a figure is complete and buyers want to know which
parts they get when buying a figure).
Example: The mech in
should not be a figure simply because of its size and part count.
(This is what I wanted to say with "small" in my previous answer.)
------------------------
| | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
