Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies Author: | Adjour | Posted: | May 3, 2020 14:01 | Subject: | Re: Ants | Viewed: | 40 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| 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.
|
Yeah, they are different molds, its hard to see in the photo but in person they
are clearly not the same part
|
|
Author: | Adjour | Posted: | May 3, 2020 14:00 | Subject: | Re: Ants | Viewed: | 49 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| 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.
|
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
|
|
Author: | hpoort | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:56 | Subject: | Re: Ants | Viewed: | 49 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| 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.
|
https://brickset.com/parts/design-62575
https://brickset.com/parts/design-23714
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
|
That makes sense to me, but it would set a new standard. Probably in line with
what BL would want for XP, but not how it is classically done.
Specifically which type of relationship can we currently choose?
The relation between plain parts and their multicolored, stickered or printed
versions on Bricklink is currently an implied relation only, by means of the
part number. There should be a new relation type defined for this relation type.
Is this in reach of the current catalog admin? And then to systematically set
the relation between each patterned part and it's base part.
|
|
Author: | WoutR | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:30 | Subject: | Re: Ants | Viewed: | 48 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I do not see a designID on the multicolored ants.
[p=62575cx1]
|
|
Author: | WoutR | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:29 | Subject: | Re: Ants | Viewed: | 55 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| 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.
|
https://brickset.com/parts/design-62575
https://brickset.com/parts/design-23714
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
|
|
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
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|