BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:

I have this set of hips from Patrick, without the legs:

970c90pb02 Hips and Light Nougat Legs with Purple Flowers on Lime Shorts Pattern (SpongeBob SquarePants Patrick)
Parts: Minifigure, Legs, Decorated

But it shows no inventory for that assembly to split up the legs from the hips.

As far as I can see in the catalog, only solid color hips and legs are sold separately.
Am I missing something? Can the decorated hips and legs be sold separately?

Thanks,

Lisa

No.

Author:

Mistress_Lisa

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 11:35

Subject:

Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

85 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I have this set of hips from Patrick, without the legs:

970c90pb02 Hips and Light Nougat Legs with Purple Flowers on Lime Shorts Pattern (SpongeBob SquarePants Patrick)
Parts: Minifigure, Legs, Decorated

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 10:21

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)

We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up.

That suggests that something isn't already drastically screwed up?

From my perspective, not having that access just makes the labor more laborious.
Permissions can be set on these databases such that users have access restricted
to certain fields. That would make your administrator lives a touch better.

It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.

You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:

3626cpb1067 Minifigure, Head Black Eyebrows, Eye Patch, and Goatee, Dark Brown Cheek Lines, Stern Pattern (Nick Fury) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

I was just going by pictures. Any picture of a two-sided head showing only one
side would be missed. As it was it took four hours. It would have been much longer
had I read every description. But the exercise helped codify the situation.

I am still against changing them all. We only need to change the new group that
is being discussed (two-sided heads that don't have two faces) or change
nothing. After all, there have not been a lot of people clamoring for this over
the years. In fact, Andy might have been the only one. In the end, there are
much more pressing catalog issues than this that need to be taken care of.

In the spirit of "thinking things through thoroughly" I believe at minimum you
want to label the reversible heads as such.

Both the single-face and the back-printed heads are not reversible. For those
items, if you search for and find the face, it's a done deal. Not specially
labeling the reversible heads makes one have to search through all the heads,
so there's no benefit (being a reduction in the found set) gained unless
this group gets distinguished somehow. If the reversible heads are labeled "dual-sided"
and the not-reversible heads are not labeled "dual-sided" that's an effective
tactic, but a misnomer.

Having gone through all the heads yesterday, I'm not sure there's any
benefit to culling out the backhead printed set. The only instance I can think
of is if there exists two heads with identical faces, one backheaded and one
not, and you want to distinguish those. Maybe you can think of some other reason.
In any event, I would like to understand your thinking on how labeling the backheaded
ones as such while not labeling the reversible heads (if that's what you're
proposing) improves the ability to find a particular head.

And I'd argue for labeling each head with one of the five categories if you
have to examine every record anyway. It won't hurt. And anything that allows
me to reduce the found count from 2600 down to one is a plus in my book. But
that's me with lots of years of dealing with databases.

Whatever decision you make regarding this issue, please document the naming convention
so when folks come along to add new heads there is a clear procedure and language
to follow.

So, yes. Thinking things through thoroughly. Probably not there yet, but closer.

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 10:11

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.

You keep coming back to and picking apart this idea? Please consider:

1) This idea has been asked for from the original BrickLink session in Seattle
more years ago then I would like to count up.

2) It would be a convenience to many users (and especially newbies) to be able
to further constrain their search results. "I am tying to find something, but
there are too many stickered parts in the way" has been stated numerous times
in the Forum over the years.

3) I do not believe that it would be complicated, difficult to implement, or
require touching the database. Each checkbox would simply add the necessary text
string '-pattern' '-sticker' to the search parameters. I have
spoken to people more knowledgeable than me who have assured me this is a real
thing.

4) It could appear within the search bar at the top of any catalog search results
page. One checkbox to Hide Decorated parts. One checkbox to Hide Stickers. The
new page designs are already likely wide enough to accommodate this. Try it searching
for 'tile 1x6' and then 'tile 1x6 -sticker' to get a feel for
how it might function when someone is looking for a part. Then, try 'legs
hips' and 'legs hips -pattern'

5) There would be less pressure on the admins to split some categories if these
options were easily available to everyone. Splits are still needed and necessary,
but I will restate that this would simply alleviate some of the pressure to do
so.

I admit that I do not really understand where you are coming from with these
last few posts discussing my little afterthought suggestion. It is not feeling
like a discussion much from my end so I am going to say thanks now for adding
your comments and that this is the last I have to say on the matter. I look forward
to this discussion heading back toward catalog issues and not coding for the
site which BL is not currently considering.

Take care!
Jen

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 09:35

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.

You may want to add or create a new item, and that is separating all the items
that contain both decorated and undecorated parts in a single category into two
categories. Or, conversely, merge all decorated and undecorated items into one.

If you want to back up the thread to Jen's decorated checkbox issue, this
is one reason that implementation won't work under the current scheme.

Some categories are already split: bricks / bricks, decorated. Some categories
are not split: minifig torsos, legs, baseplates, there may be others.

It wouldn't make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks,
decorated category because you'd find none. Similarly it wouldn't
make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks category because
it won't find any.

The basic organization of the upper categories is inconsistent in its consideration
of location of decorated/undecorated items.

I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 04:55

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

The next catalog project

I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well.

I think it did go well enough. There was a list of ideas, there was discussion,
and now there is a plan on how to move forward.

I will not bundle so many projects together in the future.

Good improvement. That will make the discussion better.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 04:51

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it.

Grrr. Someone could have mentioned that this was already a different project
(currently number 10 on the roadmap). I just now noticed. Ah, well. We got
some good discussion in on it and now I know people definitely want it.

So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 04:25

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.

I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.

I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.

One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)

There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.

...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...

We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up.

And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.

This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.

Yes, we are limited to forms.

The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.

I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.

You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:

3626cpb1067 Minifigure, Head Black Eyebrows, Eye Patch, and Goatee, Dark Brown Cheek Lines, Stern Pattern (Nick Fury) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

I think these are the various types:

- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head

- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)

- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.

These are questions:

1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.

No. This is unnecessary.

2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?

No. This is unnecessary.

3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?

Yes, this is the simplest solution, and the one most likely to get implemented.

Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.

Unfortunately, that will probably have to be done to make sure that every one
is correct. I see no other way around it if people want 100% accuracy on this.

If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 03:22

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I have [a Technic figure] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?

I'd just leave it to the people who wanted part entries for these figure
parts. The catalog is open to these entries now and they should be submitted
as Large Figure Parts like this:

Large Figure Foot Techinc

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 03:18

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

The next catalog project

I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well. I will not bundle
so many projects together in the future. Here's the status of each project
as of the moment:

Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.

Yes. This will happen soon.

Adding individual Technic figure parts.

Yes. This has already happened - it was just a policy change. Members
who wanted it may submit catalog entries (although they haven't yet).

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

Maybe. I need to understand if this will cause unforeseen problems. It
is the only project on the list which I am still uncertain about.

Adding individual decorated hips and legs.

No. This will not happen.

Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.

No. This will not happen. We could not reach any consensus on the best
path to take here and I'm not entirely convinced that the benefits would
justify the effort.

Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.

No. This will not happen, or at least not in the near future. I have
added a paragraph to this page explaining the issue (third paragraph down):

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940

At the least, though, we are officially recognizing the issue by including it
on that page. The issue with differences in production processes could
be addressed in the future when we get some sort of plan together to deal with
all the part variants which still need attention.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 17:13

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I have [m=tech011] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 16:32

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

I like that word "reversible"

In Catalog, mfav writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.

I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.

I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.

There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.

...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...

And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.

This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.

I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.

I think these are the various types:

- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head

- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)

- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.

These are questions:

1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.

2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?

3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible
heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?

Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.

If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?

Author:

ParisianStore

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 16:16

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

Hi,

Here are mine, I guess we we can consider both as marbled, even if one them has
no orange.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 16:04

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.

I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.

I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.

There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.

...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...

And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.

This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 14:33

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.

I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project. I think I may have bundled too many sub-projects
together, so this knowledge will be helpful for me when planning future projects.

Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?

There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture. And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway. The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 12:19

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.

Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 11:38

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

I would use something like:

Print on one side only:
"with X pattern"

Print on both sides:
"with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
or maybe
"dual-sided with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
because that makes it possible to use a search filter.

Face print on both sides:
"dual-faced with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 09:51

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.

If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.

I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.

I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".

Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.

Randy

That was what I was saying. I already suggested Front&Back for the ones with
back prints. But I would get rid of "Dual-Sided" entirely since it really sounds
like either one. Replace it with something more specific.

What I am saying is that I disagree with your suggestion, although I do understand
the reasoning. What I am saying is that getting rid of the term "dual-sided"
or changing "dual-sided" to "dual-faced" would *not* be a good thing since the
term "dual-sided" has been in use for a long time and is already ingrained in
the collective consciousness. I just want a new third term added to those heads
that have a face on one side and something else on the other. However, I am willing
to go along with whatever the majority decides in the end.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 09:38

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.

I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".

Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.

Randy

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 09:11

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.

I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".

Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.

Randy

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 07:52

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

29 times

Topic: