Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2024 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: Part Identification Help Needed | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
| In Catalog Identification, Uxbridgeite2 writes:
| | Can someone tell what part # this is? Thanks
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: 1905-Vizir | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, david28 writes:
| | can you tell me the time for a admin decision ?
|
The catalog experts will give you an answer for your specific item, but the general
answer to your question is anywhere from a few minutes to more than 2.5 years!
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPend.asp
Good luck.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 09:58 | | Subject: | Anonymizing Members | | Viewed: | 221 times | | Topic: | General | |
| As many of you know, I strongly disagreed with the significant disservice done
to the people who built this website's catalog with the haphazard and poorly-handled
anonymizing of catalog contributors around the time of the sale to the LEGO Group.
Yes, this is the Bluser issue. Yep, I'm speaking about it again . . . probably
because the site has repeatedly shown its contempt and disregard for the catalog
and its contributors (most recently with its poor handling of the variant issue).
So anyway, the anonymizing was so poorly handled that by performing a couple
of basic and simple Google searches I can tell you the full name of this member
and his home address:
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=bb257520
There are numerous other "anonymized" members on BrickLink for whom information
can be quite easily discovered, including full name, age, home address, telephone
number, relatives, etc., etc.
Screenshot this post if you want to keep it, because the site will probably delete
the post and ban me from the forum again for expressing myself. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 169 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| As we all know, the decision was already made before members were ever consulted.
Still, as an exercise in sharing meaningless facts, here is how BrickLink members
feel.
A total of 75 people shared thoughts (including OP).
13.4% approved of the decision.
16% had no opinion.
24% had mixed feelings.
46.6% disapproved.
Result: over 70% of respondents did not approve of these changes or had
mixed feelings. But . . . the "platform" approves, so I suppose we're
all good.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Mustard, Pizza or Cheese Macaroni | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Off Topic | |
| In Suggestions, wildchicken13 writes:
| | I and a few like-minded BrickLink members force people to wade through our garbage to use the discussion forum. Our behavior became tiresome and unfunny long ago, yet we do not accept this fact due to our collective lack of insight.
|
This is not a serious site suggestion and I request that discussion moderators
move it to Off Topic as soon as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 00:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
BrickLink could serve all users if the database was designed correctly. I agree
the site has added too many variants which are pointless and annoying for the
average user, but I've also argued for years that this is only an issue because
of inadequate site design.
If you truly want to move the site forward, then do it the right way. BrickLink
users who don't care about variants should never have to worry about them,
while those who do care should have access to all variants.
This proposal to consolidate variants is the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Instead of the easy way, choose the right way. Redesign the catalog system.
It has needed an overhaul for the last 24 years.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Games | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | games were moved from Sets to Gear
|
Oops. Games moved from Gear to Sets.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 16:31 | | Subject: | Games | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Discarded | |
| One catalog expert disagrees with me on this issue, but I am requesting that
the entire catalog team discuss this and present a unified opinion on the matter.
I also hope to hear input from other BrickLink members. Such input should definitely
have been considered in this decision (so please share your thoughts).
My opinion is that games should all be located together. When games were moved
from Sets to Gear, some were scattered throughout the catalog instead of being
categorized as games:
The rationale given to me was that only sets branded as Games would be in the
Games category. Yet even those clearly branded on the box as the Games theme
were sometimes not categorized as games:
Sets: LEGO Brand: LEGO Employee Gift: Holiday & Event: Christmas: Games
Currently, only 42 games are correctly categorized as games:
There are, by the way, other instances of set box branding ignored for the purpose
of making things easy to find. For example, these sets are all categorized as
Advent even though not all are branded that way (and, really, there is technically
no Advent branding anyway):
Why are all the advent calendars in one place? Because common sense says that
people looking for advent calendars want to see them all in one place. The same
common sense says that people looking for games want to see them all in one place.
In addition, BrickLink does not even have written guidelines governing how sets
are categorized - so it's all just the whim of the person deciding. In this
case, scattering games was simply a bad decision.
Here's another example. These sets are absolutely not Train sets. They
are City sets. Look at the pictures of the set boxes.
Notice the distinct difference in box appearance from a true train set:
But we categorize them as trains. Why were they not categorized as City:
Train: RC Train instead? Because common sense says they are trains and people
want to find all the trains together in one place.
There is more to categorization than just the box and that is why I have made
this request for a well-considered group decision. The games should have stayed
together and they should be together.
It just makes sense.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Use Image | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
Awesome! Thank you. Down to just 26 sets now.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 14:14 | | Subject: | Use Image | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Completed | |
| Thanks to plenty of work over the years, your catalog has only 27 sets out of
19,134 that are missing an image.
One of those 27 sets is this one:
A member has one for sale with an image. I am requesting that a catalog expert
check to see if the member has photo sharing turned on. If so, the image can
be used.
If not, I am requesting that the member be contacted for use of the image.
Although there's no image uploaded, this member could be contacted also:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 09:24 | | Subject: | Re: Gear tooth / teeth | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | While we’re all occupied with plurals, I remembered that gear teeth are spelled
“tooth” for most parts
|
Sylvain,
I submitted requests to change the tooth parts to teeth. I was told from the
website that these changes would not be approved.
Therefore, the 14 "teeth" items must be changed to "tooth."
I'm not going to mess with it anymore, but just thought I'd give you
an update in case you wanted to request the changes.
p.s. And then you have things like this, where the letter T is used to mean teeth:
Current title: Technic Propeller 3 Blade with 24t Gear
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 08:14 | | Subject: | Re: Cannot be Inventoried | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, axaday writes:
| | I think I was told that parts cannot be marked "Cannot Be Inventoried"
|
Thank you, Jon. I had forgotten about that.
I cancelled the request.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2023 21:49 | | Subject: | Re: Add Cobrands | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | I have completed all of the co-brand additions listed above except for the Disney
ones. I have added the Disney co-brand, but it will take some time to catch up
with that one.
|
Thank you, sir. I appreciate it!
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: 2641 Support Crane Stand Single - two varians | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | This part will be split then as they are functionally different in regards to
building possibilities. Thanks for the information.
|
Not quite sure the reason for the delay in getting this accomplished.
A catalog submission was made on August 25th, 2001:
| | 2641B Support Crane Stand Single with 6 stud holders on top plate (don't delete - there is also a forum request relating to this - PR)
Parts: (Other)
Pending Approval |
I added the other version today with an image:
[P=2641a]
Since the decision was made to split the part, all the pieces are in place now.
I encourage the catalog experts to complete these approvals and the other minor
necessary work, followed by closing out this request.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Note for 649pb06a | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | Please ad the following note:
This part came in Embossed as well as Surface Print:
- Embossed Print 1969 to mid 70's
- Surface Print 1985 and later
|
Just a suggestion, but could this message be reposted within the thread of the
similar request here?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1332460
Doing so (and then closing out this request) would reduce the already lengthy
list of open forum catalog requests. Thanks for considering it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 12:01 | | Subject: | Re: Note for 675p01 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | Please ad the following note:
This part came in Embossed as well as Surface Print:
- Embossed Print mid 70's
- Surface Print 1980 and later
|
Just a suggestion, but could this message be reposted within the thread of the
similar request here?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1332460
Doing so (and then closing out this request) would reduce the already lengthy
list of open forum catalog requests. Thanks for considering it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Differences Between these Displays | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | Strolling through the catalog today... Does anyone happen to see a difference
between [G=BioAM1] and ? If there is no difference, should one
be removed?
|
There's really no difference between these two items. The catalog error
has existed since 2011 and the forum request has been open with no response from
a catalog expert for more than a year and a half.
I urge the catalog experts to merge these two items and close the request.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: HO Scale, VW Beetle Sand green colour | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, 123yipyah writes:
| | Hi,
I submitted a change request to add the 'Sand Green' colour to item#
661pb01 and also uploaded a photo.
The request was rejected and I'm unsure why.
Can you advise me on how I should add the 'Sand green' colour of this
Vehicle.
|
The person who requested this change did not respond to a request for further
information and nearly two years have passed. It's likely that the requestor
simply made an error and confused the versions.
I recommend this request be discarded.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Part # 973pb0282c03 has 2 different variants | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, BrickU writes:
| | The listing for this Part # 973pb0282c03. There are 2 different variants.
|
This request is almost two years old with no response from a catalog expert.
It's a simple case of a minor print variation. Minifigures are already separated.
I encourage catalog experts to add an additional note to the torso itself, add
that part to the unsplit variant list, and close out this open forum request.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Question regarding 30394 Alternate 21709 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, jethroo writes:
| | Since we already have different entries for hinges reflecting different teeth
styles wouldn't it be also recommended to split the
* | | 30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle |
into 2 separate
entries?
|
It's been almost two years for this request with no response from a catalog
expert. The part is on the unsplit variant list, an additional note has been
added, and a comparison image is present.
Clearly the decision was made to not split the part. Therefore, since the differences
are documented now, there is no reason for this request to remain in open status.
I encourage the catalog experts to close this request.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:32 | | Subject: | Re: Consider merging parts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | I'm not sure that and [P=92253c00pb05] differ enough to
warrant being different parts.
|
| | So my advice is to merge the parts because all other single/dual-mold mini doll
leg variants that I know of are handled by a single part with a note on it that
variants exist.
|
I agree. Leaving this one part with two different entries while the rest have
a single entry is inconsistent.
| | Another solution for consistency is to split all known single/dual mold mini
doll leg variants.
|
That's unlikely to happen, of course. I encourage the catalog experts to
merge the two parts as requested and then close this open catalog request.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:08 | | Subject: | Re: 5489-1 Ultimate LEGO Vehicle Building Set | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Poncke writes:
| | 5489-1 Ultimate LEGO Vehicle Building Set theme needs to change from Creator
to Bricks and More.
|
This request is a duplicate of the one posted here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1316964
A catalog expert has already identified this in a response to this post. I encourage
the catalog experts to close out this duplicate request.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Hmm, the same idea in several tombs…
|
For some reason, that made me laugh.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:52 | | Subject: | Re: Pneumatic Pump 4701c01 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Abels_Bricks writes:
| | wondering if this item should be split into the 2 versions
Long stroke and short stroke.
|
This request has been open for over two years with no response from a catalog
expert.
The part has been added to the unsplit variant list and an additional note is
present. An argument could be made for keeping the request open. Since the
differences are recognized now, keeping the request open hardly seems necessary.
I suggest it be closed.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:30 | | Subject: | Re: alt sticker sheets still International? | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Brixalotl writes:
| | I have a sticker sheet from 2021 with different numbers than the catalog.
|
This issue was handled on December 27th, 2022 with the addition of this catalog
entry:
I highly encourage the catalog experts to close out this discussion forum catalog
request. There is no need whatsoever for it to remain in open status.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
