BrickLink Discussion Forum

60592c01 (Inv) Window 1 x 2 x 2 Flat Front with Trans-Clear Glass (60592 / 60601)
Parts: Window

60592c02 (Inv) Window 1 x 2 x 2 Flat Front with Trans-Light Blue Glass (60592 / 60601)
Parts: Window

60592c03 (Inv) Window 1 x 2 x 2 Flat Front with Trans-Brown Glass (60592 / 60601)
Parts: Window

Author:

brox999

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 21:18

Subject:

60592c01 - whos idea was this?

Viewed:

228 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Going back to discussion on alternate parts and the stupid decision to remove
the 3930c01 hing brick assembly from catalog we have above part, the glass fits
four seperate window frames so does that mean each one of those will have multiple
variants for glass colour.

Needs some consistency, the hinge brick parts are available seperately but are
usually in sets in the same colour, hence the assembly as a standard catalog
item. Glass on window frame is not required and will generate lots of unneeded
extra parts for catalog

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 16:29

Subject:

Re: Question about the Malevolence

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, tiggrlee writes:

OK … I forgot … is there a BL number to the Malevolence custom model? This model
is an alternative build using parts from sets 7748, 7749, 8016, 8017, 8019, 8036,
8037, 8038 and 8039. I had it built for years … but now broken down. If there
is a BL number … I can double check the inventory. Thanks … LEE

Like you said in your post, it's a CUSTOM model.

BrickLink doesn't recognise custom SW Models, so there will be no set number.

Sorry....

Paul

Author:

tiggrlee

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 15:55

Subject:

Question about the Malevolence

Viewed:

140 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

tonnic

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 05:03

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

Jere below is a copy and paste of my ideas from another related post.
I also had done a request years ago regarding Biba Fett’s legs but they were
not accepted.
I still believe a catalog cannot be complete if such important parts are not
seen as useable and saleable.

Copy from me from another recent post.
I believe I read in this large forumpost and another one that decorated legs
and hips will not be in the catalog.

I think this is a shame and a shortcoming in the catalog.

A lot of us buy second hand minifigures etc.
All parts can be broken, scratched, have hairline cracks and legs are quite often
nibbled on and have bitemarks.

I think it would be silly to buy the whole assembly while for a fraction of the
price you might want to buy a left or right leg or a hip.

Not only would it be cheaper but this is also a chance to NOT throw away parts
that cannot be sold in a standard way, a way that a buyer can find.
If they are for sale a seller must use unfindable methods and they will probably
remain it store for decades.
A wast of time, effort, money and plastic.

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

Author:

tonnic

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 04:57

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

I believe I read in this large forumpost and another one that decorated legs
and hips will not be in the catalog.

I think this is a shame and a shortcoming in the catalog.

A lot of us buy second hand minifigures etc.
All parts can be broken, scratched, have hairline cracks and legs are quite often
nibbled on and have bitemarks.

I think it would be silly to buy the whole assembly while for a fraction of the
price you might want to buy a left or right leg or a hip.

Not only would it be cheaper but this is also a chance to NOT throw away parts
that cannot be sold in a standard way, a way that a buyer can find.
If they are for sale a seller must use unfindable methods and they will probably
remain it store for decades.
A wast of time, effort, money and plastic.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 13, 2018 04:36

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

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

No.

Drats! So I guess I would have to list these hips (and any other decorated legs
or hips I find) as a custom item?

Lisa

You could list it as the complete assembly, mark it used, and say in the comments
that the legs are missing.

The problem with that is messing up the price guide. Like listing a torso assembly
and head as a minifigure, saying it is missing the legs, helmet and cape.

Author:

mhortar

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 18:20

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I understand completely all the things you say. The one thing the vol admins
can control is the description. And that is why, in absence of the ability to
change anything else, comprehensive, consistent, and thorough labeling conventions
applied uniformly across the catalog will improve the search results.

The downside of that are these descriptions that run on for two hundred words,
can be redundant and otherwise clumsy and/or inelegant.

If nobody wants to be bothered implementing some of my suggestions, I’m fine
with it.

If you want to label the backhead printed items as such, even if there is no
benefit to that, I’m fine with it.

Some suggestions that have been presented, all with honorable intentions, can’t
be implemented. I get that.

So where does any of this discussion get us? Kind of seems like, ultimately,
things are just getting rearranged for the sake of rearranging them. It seems
like all that’s getting done is constantly patching holes in the tires where
it would make more sense to remove the damned nails from the driveway.

This is, at least in part, one great exercise in futility, is it not?

As I come to this conclusion, I wonder why I have bothered. I guess I thought
my experience might be helpful. But maybe it just doesn't matter.

I kind of feel the same way you do. To me, the most important part of BrickLink
is the catalog. It's not the part that directly makes money though, so I
can see why it's less important to the powers that be. Doesn't make it
any more disheartening to hear though.

Josh

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 18:04

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 16:07

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

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.

It is not my decision to make. I am not a Catalog Admin. All I can do is offer
additional guidance to those that are. The current method has worked pretty well
so far, since the Catalog Admins make sure the naming conventions are followed
on new parts added to the catalog even if the users themselves do not know anything
about it. I don't have any reason to believe that that would change going
forward. As it is, the entire catalog is pretty amazing considering that it was
only looked after by two people for the last 9 years or so. I for one appreciate
all they have done over the years and respect them immensely for that.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 15:56

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

...and because I can't leave well enough alone...

You get different search results if you type in the top-of-the-page search box
versus if you use the search page and use a just the popups or a combination
of things there...or elsewhere...

using the search box with tile 1x6 -sticker
yields different results than using the popup category tile and stick 1x6 -sticker
in the keyword box.

All the search boxes look the same, but they don't operate the same. The
search box at the top of the page gives different results compared to the search
box on the catalog search page.

All my ranting is about wanting a uniform set of results regardless of which
search mechanism is used. I know I haven't stated that as such, but that
is what I'd expect from a search mechanism. Trying to remember which box
works which way where is painful.

All of your concerns are valid, but this whole thread is about things that the
Catalog Admins can accomplish on their own to solve some issues that do not require
programming or needing to access the back end. As volunteer admins, all they
can do is ask for some things to get changed, but they have no control over what
will be taken seriously and what won't.

Since I have become an Inventory Admin, I have been personally informed from
higher up that most of our concerns here are currently not in line with the concerns
of site management. Those who own the site have a different focus and a different
path. Their focus is on additions to BrickLink that hopefully add growth to the
marketplace. They are not concerned much, if at all, with fixing what is broken
or inconsistent on the current incarnation of BrickLink, since it pretty much
does what it needs to do. Occasionally, when people make enough fuss about something
(like I did about getting the wanted list fixed to allow myself and others to
correctly set things to average prices), they get it fixed...eventually. But
this is very rare these days.

Unfortunately, this is the environment we live and work in. Big changes are almost
certainly not going to happen, especially from the database end. The best thing
to do right now is move one and leave this stuff on the Catalog Roadmap as a
topic for later discussion.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 13:16

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 12:11

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

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

No.

Drats! So I guess I would have to list these hips (and any other decorated legs
or hips I find) as a custom item?

Lisa

You could list it as the complete assembly, mark it used, and say in the comments
that the legs are missing.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 11:59

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I admit that I do not really understand where you are coming from with these
last few posts discussing my little afterthought suggestion.

Search
slope, decorated -pattern

Search slope -sticker

I don't in any way mean to belittle you or your desire for additional functionality.
But I can't see how those searches accomplish anything. That's all.

Author:

Mistress_Lisa

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 11:57

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

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

No.

Drats! So I guess I would have to list these hips (and any other decorated legs
or hips I find) as a custom item?

Lisa

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 11:57

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

See also one of the proposals here (now decided against):

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114495

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 11:55

Subject:

Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately?

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

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

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:

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".

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 06:57

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

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.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 05:54

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

Front&Back

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 04:09

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

Author:

wahiggin

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 23:46

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

My vote:
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 21:55

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

So is there anything you want us to help with?

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.

Okay, I've read all your comments. I had to do a little interpreting for
some of them to see what each person's take was, but that's okay - these
are nuanced issues. I included my own opinion as one of those which I counted.
Let's take a look at how things turned out.

Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.

This was the third most popular project. Seven for it and seven with no opinion.
I think we'll do this one.

Adding individual decorated hips and legs.

This was the least popular project. Not a single person wanted it. Two said
maybe, four had no opinion, and eight said no. We will be staying with current
policy and not adding individual hips and legs to the catalog.

Adding individual Technic figure parts.

Five people wanted this, one said maybe, and eight had no opinion. I think we'll
go ahead with this one, too.

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

This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.

As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:

3626cpb1018 Minifigure, Head without Face with Pineapple Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.

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

No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

This was the most popular project. It received 12 approvals, one maybe, and
one no opinion. Yes, I know you can filter our decorated parts by doing a second
search for -pattern. Half the time I forget that when I need to find plain legs
and a new user certainly couldn't be expected to know it.

However, the same point about the heads applies here - minifigure legs assemblies
may need to be kept together. I'd like to do this one, but I will hold off
on saying so for sure in the hopes that someone will present the case for keeping
legs assemblies together.

So, of LordSkylark's proposed group of projects some will happen, others
won't (or won't happen exactly as requested), and one I'd like to
make happen but am not sure about. For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?

I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 17:08

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

+1
I also think that these parts should be split.

In Catalog, axaday writes:

If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

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

No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.

I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.

The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.

Andrew

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 17:03

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background

okay.

biggest issue: not enough light.

the light is too close to the cup, move it away

use a light color background

add a second light on the opposite side of the cup, not exactly opposite as in
180 degrees, but something like 120 degrees. look through the camera, if there
are spots that are very sharply white and obscure the art, then adjust the position
of the lights.

position the camera less "over the top" of the cup

attached, two shots with cell phone. note the one with the dark background has
harsh light on handle and lip of cup. this is what you want to try to avoid.

try positioning lights as shown in sketch.

Ah.... I see now, and yes, you have pointed out issues that even I can see...

I'll see if I can get something sorted tomorrow, as I can angle 4 lights
into a spot above my work table. (need to clear that first)

Watch this space!

Paul

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 16:59

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background

Author:

blockbuster

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 16:19

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

Try using a light grey background.

Author:

jpeg68

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 16:18

Subject:

Harry Potter Bricktober figs 2018

Viewed:

89 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi, I was wondering why the HP figs from 5005254 have been cataloged under Harry
Potter while the Superheroes (Avengers Infinity War) are under Collectible? The
Jurassic World figs are under Collectible too while Ninjago is simply under Ninjago?
What is the rationale behind these decisions please? Is there something obvious
I'm missing?

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 16:17

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?

I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.

Quick tips:

Shooting white on white will give you better results than white on black. Shooting
white on black will most likely push the contrast such that the subtleties in
the white range get blown out.

Light gray would also be an okay way to go.

If your'e camera savvy, put the camera on a tripod and go with a fairly long
exposure, maybe 1-2 seconds with a small aperture (f22 or higher) under daylight
lights. Your actual settings may vary, but generally long exposure, small aperture,
balanced light. If you only have one light, you might want to use a "white card"
to reflect light back onto the object from the side opposite the light source.

You definitely want a tripod or something to hold the camera still. Use the timer
or a remote trigger to take the shot, otherwise there will be camera wiggle causing
the shot to blur.

The camera on auto settings probably will make the whole shot "gray" as the internal
programming of the camera is set to achieve a particular light balance overall.
You probably will need to manually adjust the exposure to compensate for the
overall "too white" of the shot.

If the camera has a histogram, adjust exposure so the "mountains" to be on the
right side of the graph. Bracket exposures, pick the best shot.

If you want to finesse it, let me know.

M

Hahahaha..........hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

I'm sorry, but I have no idea as to what you have said because NONE of it
makes any sense to me, because I'm just using my Samsung Mobile Phone camera
to upload these images that I can take. (not computer or camera savvy at all)
it was a struggle for me to be able to re-size images to a point where they
could get uploaded...

Thank you for trying to help me in this, as I'd LOVE to take good quality
images, but I'm limited to what tools I have...

Paul

(Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background)

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 16:07

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?

I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 15:49

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:

So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...

Yes, but one at a time. So you upload the second image and wait for it to be
approved. Once it is, then upload the third image. Or fourth, fifth, etc.

However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)

If your pictures are better, then we can replace the main image with yours and
either relegate the current image to an alternate image or delete it. If you're
going to make yourself a project out of these mugs, then I suggest you take pictures
which are uniform (same angle, same lighting), large, clear, well-lit, and on
a completely white background.

The images mfav takes are the gold standard for images. You can see what I'm
talking about in the images of these hinge assemblies (he took most of them):

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3937*&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W

Thanks for doing this, BTW.

White background?

Hmm....

Most of the mugs are in white, which will make it hard to see the 'inside'
of them as this sometimes has a small design on the inside....

I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?

I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.

Paul

(I have an ulterior motive about doing this as I want to do a FB page showing
the collection in it's glory...)

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 15:40

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).

It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.

I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.

Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:43

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:26

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have.

Indeed. Also Jen has seen BrickLink from the inside, as I'm sure you're
aware.

I get the point you're making about the database being rebuilt from the ground
up with knowledge we have gained from the current database and knowledge we now
have of the variety of LEGO products in existence. That ain't likely to
happen, though.

Jen is saying we could avoid crazy, huge solutions with some coding. Again,
ain't likely to happen (although small improvements have definitely been
introduced here and there).

So we make do with what we have.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:23

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

[…]

It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.

Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

However, that actually would require data and some real coding.

Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.

At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.

Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).

Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:18

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.

The "ta da problem solved" I read as a bit tongue-in-cheek. The response to my
comment, I can't tell if it was heated or resigned or something else.

You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have. Mostly I'm advocating for the casual
visitor, so that person, when accessing the info, is not confused or overwhelmed.

I think we're all good, just having a conversation.

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:54

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I will restate that this needs to be done.

No need, friend.

I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.

These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.

I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537

Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?

These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.

What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:

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

Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.

I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.

I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.

Here's some images.

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:43

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I will restate that this needs to be done.

No need, friend.

I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.

These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:41

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.

Jen

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:41

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:

So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...

Yes, but one at a time. So you upload the second image and wait for it to be
approved. Once it is, then upload the third image. Or fourth, fifth, etc.

However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:38

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.

Ah ok, that explains it. Still I doubt that the search for base plates is very
straightforward or accessible. Why so complicated?

It is simply the data that we have. We know when sets are released, not when
LEGO stops making/selling/distributing them.
And I understand that the catalog system does seem complicated at first, but
it is really a fantastic resource once you get used to it. People here are always
happy to try and answer any questions you have about it!

Jen

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:29

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:

I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.

Can this suggestion be implemented?

Any item in the catalog can already have multiple additional images. If there
is a maximum number of images possible, then I'm not aware of it. I have
moved your post from Suggestions to Catalog.

To show you that this is already possible, I've drawn a very crude 2 and
3 over the image for this item and uploaded each as additional images (I will
delete them soon, so check them out quickly):

4495479 Cup / Mug Bricks Melamine
Gear: Food & Drink

The only caveat is that you must upload additional images for a specific catalog
entry one at a time and wait for each to be approved before you can upload the
next.

Ok,

I see now.

So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...

I can live with that.

However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)

Paul

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:28

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I will restate that this needs to be done.

No need, friend.

I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.

These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:28

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)

I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing.

Yes, it very much is. The word pattern is used extensively for any part that
is not a solid color. Most everything with 'pb' in the number is going
to have that keyword.

You reiterate my point. Most everything.

Using 'pb' and other Bricklinky language is great for the hardcore know-it-alls.
'pb' is completely meaningless to a newbie coming on board. Not many
non-dyed-in-the-wool visitors are going to understand pb or bpb or pbp or c01
or any of these other arbitrary and inconsistent labelling affectations. Nor
are they going to understand "-pattern" or other non-obvious search lingo. There's
cognitive dissonance in searching for something you don't want to
find.

And this raises the same issue as the mini doll legs being molded or
patterned...some minifig legs are dual-color molded and not otherwise decorated.
I don't know offhand if there are also dual color molded leg assemblies with
printing. Wonder Woman maybe?

Right now molded and patterned are the same thing. There are lots and lots of
standard minifig legs with two color plastics and printing. Some are in here:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=legs+boots+pattern&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W

I recognize that. I was responding to a comment elsewhere in the thread about
molded and patterned being "not the same thing."

There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.

I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.

I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier.

Well, they're not coming. This is why Don built the goatleg, and why when
that disappeared I put up the minifigureouter. So there are some resources out
there which will help to the extent that we outsiders can tag the database.

A new data base isn't needed.

It is if you want to have the functionality you described. The current database
won't support what you're asking for. I could get into specifics, but
I doubt you're going to grasp the difference between an ENUM and a SET field
unless you're a person who understands databases. It's not necessarily
the data that's a problem, it's the way the data is stored internally
and thus the ability to access the data.

Decorated parts should have the word Pattern in their name.

If this is the accepted paradigm for distinguishing a decorated part, then yes.
And currently most, if not all do.

It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.

However, that actually would require data and some real coding.

Author:

building4ever

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:24

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

Ah ok, that explains it. Still I doubt that the search for base plates is very
straightforward or accessible. Why so complicated?

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 13:12

Subject:

Re: Images for mugs

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:

I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.

Can this suggestion be implemented?

4495479 Cup / Mug Bricks Melamine
Gear: Food & Drink

The only caveat is that you must upload additional images for a specific catalog
entry one at a time and wait for each to be approved before you can upload the
next.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:48

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

The Years Released data for parts and sets only refers to the year they were
FIRST released, not all the years they were produced and available in stores.

The old Death Star 10188 only has 2008 as its Year, even though it was produced
for many years after that.

Is that what you are asking?

Jen

Thank you, but I still find it confusing. Because the base plate 48x48 gray is
indicated as "Years Released: 1980 - 2016".

I would interpret this as a "final" production year (which is wrong), Similar
for 3811 (at least saying 1978-2018).

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:46

Subject:

Images for mugs

Viewed:

109 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi all.

Most of you may not know this but I believe that the mugs selection in the 'Gear'
category doesn't do it justice, as 90% of those images are not quite good
enough to see the whole design of the mugs fully.

I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.

I am willing to submit at least 60+ mugs to the catalogue, but it will be difficult
to show the mugs off if I'm limited to 1 picture.

Can this suggestion be implemented?

Cheers,

Paul

Author:

building4ever

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:35

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:09

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

Sort by 'Item name' and then order 'Up'.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=2&itemBrand=1000

Thx, but that's not helping. It only shows baseplates as parts and says erroneously
that these are no longer being produced. I need information about which plates
can actually be bought as "sets", in which size and colors etc.

The ones currently sold by LEGO Brand Stores and LEGO S@H are

10699-1 (Inv) Sand Baseplate
1 Part, 2015
Sets: Classic

10700-1 (Inv) Green Baseplate {Plate Included is Bright Green}
1 Part, 2015
Sets: Classic

10701-1 (Inv) Gray Baseplate
1 Part, 2015
Sets: Classic

10714-1 (Inv) Blue Baseplate
1 Part, 2018
Sets: Classic

They are part of the LEGO Classic line of products.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:48

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

I find it hard to see through. E.g., the 48x48 plates are listed as part 4186,
but it says: Years Released: 1980 - 2016. If I'm looking for sets, for example,
the 10701 appears, which has been sold since 2015 and still is according to Lego
online store.

So the listing 4186 is incorrect in saying that there is no current 48x48 baseplate.

Author:

building4ever

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:40

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

Sort by 'Item name' and then order 'Up'.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=2&itemBrand=1000

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:29

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier. A new data base isn't needed. Decorated parts
should have the word Pattern in their name. It would be wonderful if there could
be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker. However, that actually would require
data and some real coding.

Ok, the brain is moving a bit slow today.

One checkbox for Hide Decorated (anything with the word Pattern)
One checkbox for Hide Sticker (anything with the word Sticker)

I am not a coder, but I can't believe this is not possible with a very easy
script.

Jen

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:21

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.

Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)

I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing.

Yes, it very much is. The word pattern is used extensively for any part that
is not a solid color. Most everything with 'pb' in the number is going
to have that keyword.

There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.

I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:16

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 11:07

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

Author:

Brickwilbo

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 10:15

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

I'm new in this forum, please let me know if I should use a different topic.

I'm not getting through the currently available baseplates. How can I sort
by plate size in the Bricklink catalog? For example, how would I find out if
there is currently a 32x32 baseplate in (Light Bluish) Gray?

I find it hard to see through. E.g., the 48x48 plates are listed as part 4186,
but it says: Years Released: 1980 - 2016. If I'm looking for sets, for example,
the 10701 appears, which has been sold since 2015 and still is according to Lego
online store.

So the listing 4186 is incorrect in saying that there is no current 48x48 baseplate.

When I search baseplate in sets, no sizes are displayed, it can not be sorted
by year.

Thank you

Sort by 'Item name' and then order 'Up'.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=2&itemBrand=1000

Author:

building4ever

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 08:40

Subject:

Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

149 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 08:37

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something.

Wraparound print.

Author:

Lauren_Luke

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 05:04

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

[StormChaser] writes:

I have never thrown objects at or among birds, so I am unable to determine if
you are doing so now.

Sorry I love idioms and I sometimes like to adulterate them and make my own.
Hence my own mixed version of the "Throw the cat among the pigeons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_the_cat_among_the_pigeons)
with "Square peg in a round hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_peg_in_a_round_hole)
and also "Throw a curve ball" (US idiom).

Anyway no animals were harmed during the production of these idioms, I have used
CGI throughout!

[StormChaser] writes:

They would not be separated by theme. This would essentially be transitioning
to the way minifigure parts are cataloged. But that suggestion won't be
looked at for a little while yet. It would involve significant changes.

Yep agree and understand. I figure (get it?) that if I put up the idea here
and now and let it mellow for a while it may mature and blossom in the future,
like a good wine or a smelly cheese.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:44

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

This may be me throwing a square ball among the pigeons

I have never thrown objects at or among birds, so I am unable to determine if
you are doing so now.

Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...

This is already on the catalog roadmap. The suggestion is to group large figure
parts together by item type to make them easier to navigate. So:

Large Figure Part, Arm
Large Figure Part, Head
Large Figure Part, Leg
Large Figure Part, Mask
Large Figure Part, Torso
etc.

They would not be separated by theme. This would essentially be transitioning
to the way minifigure parts are cataloged. But that suggestion won't be
looked at for a little while yet. It would involve significant changes.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:34

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

Is there a need to have "Minfig, Head..." at the start of each title? What about
just "Head...". This convention is used for torso and legs assemblies.

Just a catalog inconsistency. Some parts categories such as Foam, Bar, Slope,
and Tile have those words as the first word in every catalog entry within the
category (in fact, I believe all basic parts are this way).

Other categories have mixed titles. Container, Decorated, for example, contains
Container, Box and Container, Cupboard and Container, Racers, etc.

And still other categories do not have the category name in the title. Minifigure
torsos is one of them, but there are others. One of the reasons for this practice
for certain categories is to save space - titles are limited to a certain number
of characters.

Title inconsistencies which are not deliberate are the result of nearly 20 years
of (a) different approaches by different people, (b) moving parts from category
to category and splitting or merging categories, (c) a constant influx of new
items, and (d) no one with the time and/or willingness to standardize titles
catalog-wide.

As the catalog grows (we're about 1,800 items away from 100,000 catalog entries),
efforts to standardize any practices catalog-wide become increasingly
difficult. Yet, in spite of everything mentioned above, titles are still in
pretty good shape. Maggie and Ronald deserve our sincere admiration (and they
have mine) for keeping things as well-organized as they have for the past 8 years
that they have been doing this alone.

Author:

Lauren_Luke

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:24

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

[Lauren_Luke] (that's me) writes:

Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...

Figure Part, Large - Large Figure Part
Figure Part, Technic - Technic figure parts (this sub-project)
Figure Part, Classic - really old classic figure parts
Figure Part, Galidor
Figure Part, Hero Factory
Figure Part, Bionicle

etc

... or put them all in Figure Part with the title suffixed with "(Large)", "(Technic)",
"(Bionicle)", etc. along with another category 'Figure Accessory' with
similar suffixes.

Author:

Lauren_Luke

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:14

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

Adding individual Technic figure parts.

[StormChaser] writes:

For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?

I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.

This may be me throwing a square ball among the pigeons, but I'll say it
anyway...

Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...

Figure Part, Large - Large Figure Part
Figure Part, Technic - Technic figure parts (this sub-project)
Figure Part, Classic - really old classic figure parts
Figure Part, Galidor
Figure Part, Hero Factory
Figure Part, Bionicle

etc

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:12

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, bje writes:

So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?

Goodness, no. I'm suggesting a brief title addition only to heads
which have printing on more than one side. Or, more precisely, LordSkylark suggested
it and I think it's something we could accomplish.

Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:

Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided

We could add a third type of title such as:

Minfig, Head Dual Printed

That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something. This is LordSkylark's suggestion, so maybe he should
be suggesting something. Here was his original suggestion:

Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided”,
not merely heads with a face on both sides. (I am not sure why the current catalog
administrators are so stubborn about changing this.) [Maybe the head category
is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.]

Having read all of the opinions on this topic and having thought about this suggestion
further, I have come to the following two conclusions:

(1) I think that adding a third kind of name tag for heads would be the best
solution as you state. That way, none of the heads that are single-sided or currently
labeled as dual-sided would need to be changed. Andy could even do the work of
finding the heads he is talking about and submitting the necessary changes.

(2) All of the heads should remain in one category. It is OK to have separate
categories for non-patterned versus patterned parts, but wanting to split these
heads into multiple categories by the amount of pattern does not seem right anymore.
I liked the comment that new users will not know right away that they need to
look through more than one category when looking for heads. The comment that
there would be increased difficulty in remembering what category to submit a
new head part into was also very convincing. It would probably even create a
lot of unnecessary work for sellers that currently have large inventories. I
think some of these same comments apply to the decision on whether or not to
split the minifig legs assemblies into non-patterned versus patterned, but at
least there are numerous precedents in the catalog already for doing this.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

hpoort

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:11

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.

You just did: "dual" for dual faces and "both sides" for just printing on both
front and back side of the part. Works fine for me.

Hans-Peter

Author:

Lauren_Luke

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 04:07

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

[StormChaser] writes:

Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:

Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided

We could add a third type of title such as:

Minfig, Head Dual Printed

Is there a need to have "Minfig, Head..." at the start of each title? What about
just "Head...". This convention is used for torso and legs assemblies.

Author:

bje

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 03:49

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, bje writes:

So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?

Ahh OK, now I understand better. Still think two categories is the way to go
though. For the meantime, maybe consider "bilateral" (defined as having two sides)
or "interchangeable" (defined as transposable). Anything you use is going to
be an awkward as my original thought that some names are going to be long still
stands.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 03:37

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bje writes:

So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?

Author:

bje

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 02:52

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

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

This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.

As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:

3626cpb1018 Minifigure, Head without Face with Pineapple Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.

So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then? How many people are going to read catalog naming
conventions prior to do doing a search? Let us for the sake of argument use the
following terms then (these are not meant to be the naming conventions):
Single sided face print; (for heads with ONLY a face printed on one side)
Double sided face print; (for heads with ONLY a face printed on BOTH sides)
Single sided ornate print (ornate being defined as a complex pattern, i e pattern
other than a face. Printed on one side only)
Double sided ornate print (Ornate printed on BOTH sides)
Double sided face/ornate print (Face print on one side and ornate print on the
other)

This would mean the vast majority of heads would have to be renamed so as to
split between dual and single sided, new entries would have to be tested against
the naming convention every time (I for one will forget this probably 50% of
the time I add one) and you might end up with the trouble that the names would
be too long for the description field, meaning you would have to start using
abbreviations or worse still, cut out some other detail which might be important.
Unless you go with adding descriptors only to the dual sided heads, in which
case you would still need at least three naming conventions.

Changing dual sided to its own category would mean that you would not necessarily
have to rename face prints, as I think we can all agree that face printing is
the standard, and that you would only need to add a descriptor such as ornate
to those that have no face printing at all.

I get that minifig heads is a large category. A quick search reveals the following:
2 643 heads; 918 with the current descriptor "dual" (~34%). So putting 34% of
the current into a new category, searching through those that have no face printing
and renaming them, could be a fair bit less work than starting with naming conventions
and renaming all 34% of those and possibly 100% of heads, IMO.

In terms of functionality, a dual sided head is possibly used differently to
a single sided printed head. Probably better to split those then, as it might
be easier to search through 918 of a particular use, than 2 643 of a general
use. At least then you would able to completely cut out the descriptor "dual
sided" or whatever would be used and only use the pertinent details of the head
in its description, which would give you some space to rather make sure that
perhaps more pertinent details are added. So that:

3626bpb0528 Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Luminara Unduli Purple Lips and Large Blue Eyes / Protective Eye Mask Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

becomes: Minifig, Alien with SW Luminara Unduli Purple Lips and Large Blue Eyes
/ Protective Eye Mask Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
and

3626bpsc Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Gray Eyebrows, Implant on Back Pattern (Lobot) - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

becomes: Minifig, Alien with SW Gray Eyebrows / Implant Pattern (Lobot) - Blocked
Open Stud

I personally would still prefer a split in categories.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 01:35

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

3626cpb1018 Minifigure, Head without Face with Pineapple Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 22:17

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mhortar writes:

I take that back... Sets are pretty simple compared to Gear and Books. Where
on earth would you put

ashtray01 Ashtray, Red Trim and LEGO Logo Open O Style
Gear: Smoking Supplies

Simple. With the Zippo lighters and other smoking supplies. I guess no one
wanted to call them what they were?

Author:

Brickitty

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 22:00

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, MidwestBrick writes:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

In Catalog, MidwestBrick writes:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/EXTN/1481.png?0

Clearly it's marbled in the set image.

You're right, it is. Perhaps the catalog admin should change this and consolidate
both parts under 53588pb01, in Dark Gray or Dark Bluish Gray, then?

And possibly purchase some items at those two stores to make amends?

I'll definitely send a message to the sellers I messaged before, to let them
know they should relist the parts appropriately. But I'm curious why you
think I'm in any way responsible for the catalog error or receiving refunds
for what I could only assume were mistakes? I was just going off of the catalog,
and it's only the difficulties during this last week that led me to believe
that the part might not exist in a non-marbled version.

Guess tough crowd to crack a joke within, I'll keep my fun thoughts to myself
next time.

(I'm smiling and having a chuckle while I write this). Best
of luck in your investigation.

No worries. The levity didn't make it through my screen -- though I miss
jokes in person too, so maybe I can't blame the lack of physiological clues.
Anyway, have a good one!

Author:

MidwestBrick

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 20:28

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

In Catalog, MidwestBrick writes:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/EXTN/1481.png?0

Clearly it's marbled in the set image.

You're right, it is. Perhaps the catalog admin should change this and consolidate
both parts under 53588pb01, in Dark Gray or Dark Bluish Gray, then?

And possibly purchase some items at those two stores to make amends?

Guess tough crowd to crack a joke within, I'll keep my fun thoughts to myself
next time.

(I'm smiling and having a chuckle while I write this). Best
of luck in your investigation.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 19:39

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

This part is cataloged as "dark gray"; the rest of the "gray" parts in the set
are dbg. This piece (well, the couple I have here anyway) I find closer to dbg
than dg. Picture attached. DG motor and DBG 2x3 brick for color comparison.

Author:

WhiteVanMan

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 18:43

Subject:

Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

I definitely agree with dearlydeparted on this. I think this part should stay
in the catalog. I know when I buy it, I look for the assembly.

I assume the multitude of possible combinations would be due to all the different
colors that that hinge comes in? Perhaps the only assembly of it allowed in
the catalog would be one in which both halves are the same color? If the top
and bottom halves are different colors, then the seller will have to list them
separately.

David

This actually makes sense...

Maybe something can be done to not allow sellers to sell combinations of different
colour sections?

It's easier to 'store' them when they are paired up, but then again,
the individual parts cost more than the assembly....

I know I'll be sticking with the individuals from now on...

Paul

Author:

edeevo

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 18:05

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, RoswellGinny writes:

I have sold a bunch of these. I did list one that I thought had no marbling,
but then when I got ready to ship it I realized there was a tiny bit of marbling
at one corner. I think that there were some produced that had such a small amount
of marbling that if you didn't look at it closely you could mistake it for
solid as I did. Luckily my buyer seemed happy with it regardless.

This is the total of what I have currently in stock, but I'll check my storage
and if I see more I'll shoot you a message.

^^This^^

I've also sold a bunch of these items over the years and a few had very little
marbling on them, but it was still there... I recall one of them had the marbling
that could only be seen on the bottom of the base, except for a slight marbled
curved line that ran down one side of it (the whole top looked like a solid color
with a weird curved line in it)... I remember it, because on at least a few occasions
I would see it in a certain light, and think the part was actually cracked.

Life is Good.
~Ed.

Author:

WildBricks

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 17:57

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

Author:

Brickitty

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 17:54

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

Do you need any more evidence to make the change in the catalog, or is this sufficient?

I agree with the change based on the little research I've done today and
what others have said. However, it is possible (though unlikely) that a straight
DBG version of this plate was made. Forcing everything over would mess up some
sellers if they had the rare version (which again, probably doesn't exist).

Let me contact some of these sellers and I'll reply back later with the results.
Or, if you'd be willing to continue contacting them yourself it would be
appreciated.

Good catch on discovering this, BTW.

Thanks! I would be happy to continue contacting sellers, letting them know to
get back to me if they can confirm the existence of a solid-colored DBG version.
I'll follow up with you next week.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 17:31

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Brickitty writes:

Do you need any more evidence to make the change in the catalog, or is this sufficient?

Author:

Brickitty

Posted:

Nov 9, 2018 17:26

Subject:

Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy

Viewed:

35 times

Topic: