BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

The brand filter is not working correctly. I have LEGO only turned on, yet I
am shown adverts for non-LEGO items during my searches. Is it possible to turn
off non-LEGO products?

Oh, that’s a good one

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 22, 2019 07:40

Subject:

Brand filter not working

Viewed:

63 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

The brand filter is not working correctly. I have LEGO only turned on, yet I
am shown adverts for non-LEGO items during my searches. Is it possible to turn
off non-LEGO products?

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 17:44

Subject:

Re: size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, SRC writes:

size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

weight is 290g
dimensions are 26 x 6 x 14 cm

SRC

Hi your dimensions are in wrong order. In Bricklink catalog boxes are mesured
like in attached picture.
1st dimension : 2nd dimension : 3rd dimension

So should be 14 x 26 x 6 cm

Somebody already added dimension for this set and it looks correct
14.1 x 26.2 x 6.2 cm

I wonder if we could change the dimensions to x, y, and z. The current names
are none of them obvious. The same would be true for many of x, y, z, but probably
no one would go with an assumption with those. I certainly have with length,
width, and depth.

Author:

DamoB

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 15:30

Subject:

Re: Help identifying a brick

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, WrefordBrown writes:

Hi there, hope someone can help.

I've found what looks like a 7049b but with a white rather than red interior
and 'Pat Pend' on the bottom. It's from a box of my own childhood
Lego so it's definitely from the early 80's - should I list this as a
7049b or is there a better description?

Grateful for some advice...

There are a few variations of the interior colors.
BrickLink does not separate those variations, so 7049b is correct.

7049b Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder, Trans-Clear Bottom
Parts: Brick, Modified

Thank you - 7049b it is!

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 14:22

Subject:

Re: size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SRC writes:

size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

weight is 290g
dimensions are 26 x 6 x 14 cm

SRC

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 14:09

Subject:

Re: size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SRC writes:

size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

weight is 290g
dimensions are 26 x 6 x 14 cm

SRC

Please submit this information using the appropriate form:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=S

Thanks,
Randy

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 13:55

Subject:

Re: Help identifying a brick

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WrefordBrown writes:

There are a few variations of the interior colors.
BrickLink does not separate those variations, so 7049b is correct.

7049b Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder, Trans-Clear Bottom
Parts: Brick, Modified

Author:

DamoB

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 13:50

Subject:

Help identifying a brick

Viewed:

111 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

SRC

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 13:40

Subject:

size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

size and weight 40334 Avengers Tower

weight is 290g
dimensions are 26 x 6 x 14 cm

SRC

Author:

Stuart9

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 04:19

Subject:

Re: Help recognise piece

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

2488 Minifigure, Weapon Whip / Plant Vine
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon

In Catalog, Alang41 writes:

I bought a job lot of older Lego and there was a lot of plants and trees. And
there is 3 parts I can’t recognise from anywhere

Author:

nectara

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 04:08

Subject:

Re: Help recognise piece

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Alang41 writes:

I bought a job lot of older Lego and there was a lot of plants and trees. And
there is 3 parts I can’t recognise from anywhere

2488

Author:

Alang41

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 04:01

Subject:

Help recognise piece

Viewed:

104 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I bought a job lot of older Lego and there was a lot of plants and trees. And
there is 3 parts I can’t recognise from anywhere

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 19, 2019 05:35

Subject:

Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs?

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, chetzler writes:

41775-1 (Inv) Character, Unikitty!, Series 1 (Complete Random Set of 1 Character)
1 Set, 2018
Sets: Unikitty!: Unikitty! Series 1

Is this supposed to be the entry for the complete set of 12 unique Unikitty collectible
minifigs? This whole entry is very confusing. The name says "complete random
set" and also "1 minifigure". The inventory shows 12 unique figs. Which is
it: a random set of 12? One random figure? A complete set of all the figs?

The price guide doesn't help much: the average prices seem too low for a
set of 12 and too high for a single fig. Judging by the individual prices it
appears that some sellers are treating this entry as a single random fig and
others are treating it as a a set of 12.

Am I better off creating a super lot if I want to sell a complete set of 12?

Project complete, all entries for complete sets of Collectible Minifigures have
been created.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 15:54

Subject:

Re: 111901-1 ninjago legacy foilpack

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, smink45 writes:

Hi,

I have 111901-1 as a foilpack but this set number is given to another set. Is
it possible to make this set correct with the right set numbers?

Jeroen

111901-1 (Inv) Garmadon blister pack
4 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2019
Sets: NINJAGO: Legacy: Rise of the Snakes

This is exactly the same set just in different packing. Inside parts and minifig
are exactly the same. In some countries this minfig was added to the magazine
as blister pack like in Germany or Poland in other in foilpack like in the
UK for example.
So just add it as set variant: 111901-2 as Randy wrote in previous post.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 14:05

Subject:

Re: 111901-1 ninjago legacy foilpack

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, smink45 writes:

Hi,

I have 111901-1 as a foilpack but this set number is given to another set. Is
it possible to make this set correct with the right set numbers?

Jeroen

It will need a new catalog entry as 111901-2.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 13:47

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

My point was that if you categorize it as a bushing, you don't need to worry
about the length of it at all. You don't see the axle bushing above listed
as a "Technic Bush 1L". It is just "Technic Bush". So change that one to "Technic
Axle Bush" and

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

to "Technic Pin Bush" and problem solved. No need to worry about the length at
all. Like I said, it doesn't and can't connect pins or axles at all,
so it is definitely *not* a "Technic, Pin Connector". And that's a fact.

I submitted changes along this train of thought long ago but they were not approved.
It is a 1x1 Liftarm in actuality but functions only as a bushing. I support moving
it to a more appropriate category.

Jen

I had never thought of it as a 1x1 liftarm, but that makes perfect sense at least
in an algorithmic type way. A liftarm that cannot actually lift or connect anything!
Maybe go further and rename all liftarms as double bush, treble bush, etc!

The official name for the part from LEGO is "Beam 1X1". That should tell you
exactly how they think it is classified.

But I am against naming something
a liftarm that can't lift anything, just like I am against naming something
a pin connector that can't connect any pins.

Randy

Author:

smink45

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 13:41

Subject:

111901-1 ninjago legacy foilpack

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi,

I have 111901-1 as a foilpack but this set number is given to another set. Is
it possible to make this set correct with the right set numbers?

Jeroen

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 13:40

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

I submitted changes long ago, also, and they were also rejected. Great minds
and all that!

Randy

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 09:45

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 09:29

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 09:07

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

[…]
Yeah, so why call this a pin 1/2 ... […]

Because there’s no constistence to the catalogue?

Personally, I'd go with a naming convention of the form:

32054 Technic, Pin 3L with Friction Ridges and Stop Bush
Parts: Technic, Pin

Pin 2L (with friction ridges) and Stop Bush 1L.

So a normal pin would be a pin 2L, a half pin would be a pin 1L, and so on. Anything
with four half pins would be "with 4 pins 1L" and so on.

Okay… provided we agree on what a “L” is and out-of-system dimensions like “2/3
L” are verified before being accepted in the catalogue

Yes, consistency is key. Maybe as a definition, call 1L equal to what LEGO call
1M.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:59

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

19 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

[…]
Yeah, so why call this a pin 1/2 ... […]

Because there’s no constistence to the catalogue?

Personally, I'd go with a naming convention of the form:

32054 Technic, Pin 3L with Friction Ridges and Stop Bush
Parts: Technic, Pin

Pin 2L (with friction ridges) and Stop Bush 1L.

So a normal pin would be a pin 2L, a half pin would be a pin 1L, and so on. Anything
with four half pins would be "with 4 pins 1L" and so on.

Okay… provided we agree on what a “L” is and out-of-system dimensions like “2/3
L” are verified before being accepted in the catalogue

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:45

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of

2780 Technic, Pin with Short Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

Why half of it? And if it was half of it, shouldn't that one be named a "double
pin". […]

But

6232 Brick, Modified 2 x 2 with Pin and Axle Hole
Parts: Brick, Modified

has only one pin, or is the other half considered hidden inside the brick?

And

15100 Technic, Pin with Friction Ridges and Pin Hole
Parts: Technic, Pin

6628 Technic, Pin with Friction Ridges and Tow Ball (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Pin

and the like are “pin”s, not “half-pin”s and there’s no room for a hidden second
half.

Yeah, so why call this a pin 1/2 ...

4274 Technic, Pin 1/2 without Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

And this ...

49731 Technic, Pin 1/2 with Foil Connector
Parts: Technic, Pin

And everyone's favourite, the flick missile ...

61184 Technic, Pin 1/2 with 2L Bar Extension (Flick Missile)
Parts: Technic, Pin

Personally, I'd go with a naming convention of the form:

32054 Technic, Pin 3L with Friction Ridges and Stop Bush
Parts: Technic, Pin

Pin 2L (with friction ridges) and Stop Bush 1L.

So a normal pin would be a pin 2L, a half pin would be a pin 1L, and so on. Anything
with four half pins would be "with 4 pins 1L" and so on.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:32

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

[…]
My point was that if you categorize it as a bushing, you don't need to worry
about the length of it at all. You don't see the axle bushing above listed
as a "Technic Bush 1L". It is just "Technic Bush". So change that one to "Technic
Axle Bush" and

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

Simple solution indeed.
No wonder you’re, er, should be, paid the big bucks

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:30

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of

2780 Technic, Pin with Short Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

Why half of it? And if it was half of it, shouldn't that one be named a "double
pin". […]

But

6232 Brick, Modified 2 x 2 with Pin and Axle Hole
Parts: Brick, Modified

has only one pin, or is the other half considered hidden inside the brick?

And

15100 Technic, Pin with Friction Ridges and Pin Hole
Parts: Technic, Pin

6628 Technic, Pin with Friction Ridges and Tow Ball (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Pin

and the like are “pin”s, not “half-pin”s and there’s no room for a hidden second
half.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:25

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way

3713 Technic Bush
Parts: Technic

is a 1L bushing for axles.

Cheers,
Randy

How can factual correctness be less important than a choice of how to categorise
it? I'd say #1 is to get the facts straight, and after that, we can go and
organise it. But what SylvainLS points out here is a real mistake that should
be corrected. It's a small thing in itself, but the correctness of the catalog
is one of the core features that drive Bricklink. I'd say it's the main
selling point of Bricklink compared to BrickOwl.

Maybe someone thought it was 2 plates high, thus 2/3.. but it really raises the
question why it was ever approved.

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 08:19

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of

2780 Technic, Pin with Short Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

Why half of it? And if it was half of it, shouldn't that one be named a "double
pin".

I have always taken a pin to be that whole part. If you have half of it, then
you have half a pin. Which is how this one is named.

4274 Technic, Pin 1/2 without Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

And of course if you have 3/4 of it, you get this one.

32002 Technic, Pin 3/4
Parts: Technic, Pin

But then the naming problems come with longer ones.

6558 Technic, Pin 3L with Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

and so on. These should be 1.5 pins but now use the L naming instead so 3L.

Maybe normal pins should be called "pin 2L", half pins could be called "1/2 pin
1L" and so on, although just "pin 1L" would do if the L designation is used.

Especially when things like this are named

47994 Technic, Pin Double Triangle 1 x 3 with 2 Clips with Round Pin Holes
Parts: Technic, Pin

as pin double, when really they are "pin 1/2" double. And double is also used
here:

32138 Technic, Pin Double with Axle Hole
Parts: Technic, Pin

What is double here, is it two full pins joined side by side with a stop bush
inserted into the middle with an axle hole (as suggested by the name), or is
it quadruple 1/2 pins? Plus the L dimensions are not given.

Worse still, this one is now not a double, but four pins (really 1/2 pins).
Or should it be a double pin, where the pins are separated with something in
the middle, like above.

48989 Technic, Pin Connector Perpendicular 3L with 4 Pins
Parts: Technic, Connector

Plus this one isn't a pin anymore, whereas the one above is.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 07:25

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, dkillgore writes:

So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?

No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of

2780 Technic, Pin with Short Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

A "stud" is the standard connection point on the top of LEGO bricks and plates.

Yes, and wes say “stud” for the distance between the centers of two studs / the
width of 1-stud-wide brick or plate.

Example, part 2817 is a modified plate, 2 x 2 with pin holder
and it is possible to attach a stud of say a 1x4 in the pin holder to do a perpendicular
build. Is the cuff for attachment too shallow on the 18654 to, say, do a reversal?
Just asking or future buying and building

You can do a stud reversal with

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

just like with any other thick Technic liftarm since they are the same thickness.
Part 18654 is pretty much just a thick 1L Technic liftarm.

Exactly, “BEAM 1X1” is its LEGO name.

And about puting studs in technic holes, note that a technic hole is slightly
smaller than a stud (the actual round peg), and if you attach more than one stud
to technic holes, the force needed to remove them once inserted is too strong
for a 7-year-old child. That’s why LEGO say it’s “illegal” to connect more than
one stud to technic holes.

Also, note that a technic hole is also slightly higher than a side-stud on the
modified bricks. So you shan’t mix bricks with side studs and technic bricks
with half-pins (though some official builds do).
And you shan’t have overhanging bricks on top of the technic brick. Like on
the picture below, the red plate shan’t be placed over the tan plates. (Yes,
some official builds do that too.)

And while we are talking about SNOT building, be careful with logos, they really
push the bricks that want to lay on them (second picture, if the blue brick had
studs, the red brick wouldn’t be able to attach correctly to the tan headlight
brick, and would be pushed upward by the stud).

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 05:41

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.

I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.

Especially if I compare it to

62462 Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round)
Parts: Technic, Connector

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

and their variants, or with

43857 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 2
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

and other liftarms/beams, or all the connectors with “# L” in their descriptions.

In the same way, its new dimensions are 1 x 1 x 0.67. As it’s a cylinder, it
means the 0.67 is supposed to apply to its height. But its height is exactly
1 stud, which is 5/6th = 0.83 brick, not 2/3rd = 0.67, and, anyway, “L” means
stud, not brick, so 1 = 1.

Therefore, I strongly believe its name should have stayed “Technic, Pin Connector
Round 1 L” and its dimensions should be 1 x 1 x 0.83.
(Actually, its diameter is a shy less than 1 stud, so its dimensions should be
0.9something x 0.9something x 0.83 but all the liftarms have the same width and
are said to be 1 stud wide.)

Not filing a proper catalogue change request because I really would want to know
the reasoning here, not play ping-pong.

3713 Technic Bush
Parts: Technic

is a 1L bushing for axles.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 02:16

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, dkillgore writes:

So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?

No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of

2780 Technic, Pin with Short Friction Ridges
Parts: Technic, Pin

A "stud" is the standard connection point on the top of LEGO bricks and plates.

You can do a stud reversal with

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

just like with any other thick Technic liftarm since they are the same thickness.
Part 18654 is pretty much just a thick 1L Technic liftarm.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

bb1237701

Posted:

Apr 16, 2019 20:48

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.

I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.

Especially if I compare it to

62462 Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round)
Parts: Technic, Connector

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

and their variants, or with

43857 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 2
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

3713 Technic Bush
Parts: Technic

is a 1L bushing for axles.

Cheers,
Randy

So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?

Example, part 2817 is a modified plate, 2 x 2 with pin holder
and it is possible to attach a stud of say a 1x4 in the pin holder to do a perpendicular
build. Is the cuff for attachment too shallow on the 18654 to, say, do a reversal?
Just asking or future buying and building

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 16, 2019 20:30

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.

I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.

Especially if I compare it to

62462 Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round)
Parts: Technic, Connector

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

and their variants, or with

43857 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 2
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

3713 Technic Bush
Parts: Technic

is a 1L bushing for axles.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 16, 2019 19:49

Subject:

Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

120 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.

I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.

Especially if I compare it to

62462 Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round)
Parts: Technic, Connector

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

and their variants, or with

43857 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 2
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

Author:

randyipp

Posted:

Apr 15, 2019 16:54

Subject:

Re: Is 21313 Inv correct? (Ship in Bottle)

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SteveDJ writes:

So then the question is ... what is the procedure to ask for a change in the
catalog?

Submitted, not sure if I can add an alternate counterpart though, never tried
that one.

Author:

SteveDJ

Posted:

Apr 15, 2019 12:51

Subject:

Re: Is 21313 Inv correct? (Ship in Bottle)

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

So then the question is ... what is the procedure to ask for a change in the
catalog?

In Catalog, randyipp writes:

In Catalog, SteveDJ writes:

The inventory for Ship in a Bottle shows these two parts:

61287pb001 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

61287pb002 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

...both indicating that the print of the continents should be Reddish Brown.

I recently tried to purchase the halves from a Bricklink Seller, only to receive
Brown continents, as per

61287pb005 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

and

61287pb006 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

In discussing the situation with the seller, they said they had "Parted Out"
4 such Ship in Bottle sets, yet all the globe pieces in their inventory (including
another 3 or 4 pairs they already had) were the same ... Brown!

Is there some way to verify if the globes in the set might have been different
print colors throughout the manufacture run of Ship in a Bottle?

If you have a Ship in a Bottle set built, take a look at what color the continents
are for you ... perhaps Brown is a valid Alternate that should be added to the
inventory?

Looks like this should be an alternate. I built 1 and parted out 6, none of
them reddish brown continents.

Author:

BEL

Posted:

Apr 14, 2019 08:58

Subject:

Towel

Viewed:

140 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hello,

Is there a difference between part 72965 and part Belville towel 5 ×14 ? I don't
see it.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 13, 2019 13:41

Subject:

Re: Have Rubber Bands Been Consistent?

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I have quite a few rubber bands here and some more to post soon. I have generally
been pretty non-critical when parting out Technic sets with old rubber bands,
but I have one I'm not sure about at the moment and all this is to say:

If we edited the names of the old rubber bands to give approximate "diameter
at rest" would they still have in just a few size classes or would we find 20
size classes?

Some of the rubber bands do vary quite a bit in size, so the "approximate" sizes
in relation to other rubber bands has always been the best way to handle this.
Also, it is extremely hard to get a lot of these rubber bands to lay flat at
rest, so measuring them is, at best, mostly an approximation and a chore. The
rubber belts on the other hand are a completely different story and can be worked
out. This is project number 10 on the catalog roadmap (although it is labeled
wrong...it should say "Rubber Belt Cleanup").

Cheers,
Randy

Okay. I'll get everything I have together and see if I can make things out.
I believe that 9605-2 has small rubber bands, not extra small.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 13, 2019 12:43

Subject:

Re: Have Rubber Bands Been Consistent?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 13, 2019 10:11

Subject:

Have Rubber Bands Been Consistent?

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

randyipp

Posted:

Apr 12, 2019 21:50

Subject:

Re: Is 21313 Inv correct? (Ship in Bottle)

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SteveDJ writes:

The inventory for Ship in a Bottle shows these two parts:

61287pb001 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

61287pb002 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

...both indicating that the print of the continents should be Reddish Brown.

I recently tried to purchase the halves from a Bricklink Seller, only to receive
Brown continents, as per

61287pb005 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

and

61287pb006 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

Looks like this should be an alternate. I built 1 and parted out 6, none of
them reddish brown continents.

Author:

SteveDJ

Posted:

Apr 12, 2019 14:28

Subject:

Is 21313 Inv correct? (Ship in Bottle)

Viewed:

91 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

The inventory for Ship in a Bottle shows these two parts:

61287pb001 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

61287pb002 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Reddish Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

...both indicating that the print of the continents should be Reddish Brown.

I recently tried to purchase the halves from a Bricklink Seller, only to receive
Brown continents, as per

61287pb005 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with the Americas and South Pacific Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

and

61287pb006 Cylinder Hemisphere 2 x 2 with Cutout with Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Dark Brown Globe Pattern
Parts: Cylinder, Decorated

Author:

hpoort

Posted:

Apr 12, 2019 12:40

Subject:

Re: help by brick 2x2

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, buildingfactory writes:

i don´t find the right item part ID for middle and right brick 2x2

i have 3 different brick 2x2 black

left Brick 2 x 2 without side support and without Two Vertical Lines Each Side
middle 3003? (same as frosted?)
right with cross support number?

All three are considered

3003 Brick 2 x 2
Parts: Brick

. These variations are not distinguished on
Bricklink as they have no significant functional difference.

The variations of all bricks labelled 'frosted' are relevant for transparent
colors only.

Hans-Peter

Author:

buildingfactory

Posted:

Apr 12, 2019 09:29

Subject:

help by brick 2x2

Viewed:

86 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

paulvdb

Posted:

Apr 11, 2019 12:56

Subject:

Re: Set 70822

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Vampi writes:

Almost half of the past are not listed.Please complete
Thanks

Best Regards Vampi

Are you talking about the parts that are in the minifigs?

Minifig No: tlm126 Name: Unikitty - Lopsided Smile

tlm126 (Inv) Unikitty - Lopsided Smile
Minifigures: The LEGO Movie 2

tlm127 (Inv) Ice Cream Cone
Minifigures: The LEGO Movie 2

tlm128 (Inv) Chocolate Bar
Minifigures: The LEGO Movie 2

If you want to see their individual parts in the set inventory you can click
on the link at the top of the set inventory that says "Break Minifigs."

Author:

Emperor_Penguin

Posted:

Apr 11, 2019 12:55

Subject:

Re: Set 70822

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Vampi writes:

Almost half of the past are not listed.Please complete
Thanks

Best Regards Vampi

It's because they moved the brick-built characters into the Minifigure category
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=70822-1&viewItemType=M

Author:

Vampi

Posted:

Apr 11, 2019 12:43

Subject:

Set 70822

Viewed:

87 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Almost half of the past are not listed.Please complete
Thanks

Best Regards Vampi

Author:

InqMikhailovich

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 15:08

Subject:

Re: Set 40334 - Avengers Tower

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

Thank you both very much!

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 11:22

Subject:

Re: Please approve stickers from 853921

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WalterTheWalrus writes:

Hi, please approve thiese following parts I submitted 1 month ago:

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=853921stk01
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=853921stk02
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=853921stk03
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=853921stk04
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=853921stk05

...and relative images...

Thank you

(just checked the date, it's 2 weeks ago, not one month

)

how time flies

Done they are in the catalog

Author:

WalterTheWalrus

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 07:31

Subject:

Re: Please approve stickers from 853921

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WalterTheWalrus writes:

(just checked the date, it's 2 weeks ago, not one month

)

Author:

WalterTheWalrus

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 07:29

Subject:

Please approve stickers from 853921

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 06:37

Subject:

9605-3 Pic Request

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

The picture of

9605-1 (Inv) 4.5V Technic Resource Set
268 Parts, 1985
Sets: Educational & Dacta: Technic
Marked for Deletion

is the larger version with 1500 pieces. There is a
smaller set with the same number that has only 268 pieces. Can someone provide
a picture of that set for the catalog?

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 04:07

Subject:

Re: Image for iphone case 5002518b

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, cgphoenix writes:

Hi!

The main image for the abovementioned iPhone Case is broken, the second one looks
good. Could please someone set the second pic as the main pic?
Thanks!

Chris

It is because image of this gear is for yellow and you listed your item for sale
as not applicable.

Author:

cgphoenix

Posted:

Apr 10, 2019 03:50

Subject:

Image for iphone case 5002518b

Viewed:

76 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi!

The main image for the abovementioned iPhone Case is broken, the second one looks
good. Could please someone set the second pic as the main pic?
Thanks!

Chris

Author:

mhortar

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 21:00

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

The other thing, pertinent to the current thread, would be a decent glossary.
That alone ought to help sort out or crystallize concepts relative to language
(plates vs tiles) and other concepts.

A glossary would be a huge help, I imagine. I frequent a number of communities
that have people with varying knowledge of LEGO parts and it's interesting
seeing some of the names they have for various parts. The handful I can remember
easily:
Plates - 'bricks', 'short bricks', 'shorts'
Tiles - 'plates', 'flats'
Wedge - 'wing'
slopes - 'angles'

It would be nice to be able to have a page where someone can search for the term
they are used to and see what the 'official' term is.

Josh

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 20:39

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

Indeed. But what I’m against, and I wasn’t clear, is the use of the term “jumper”
for a tile with studs + plate without studs category.
For me, “jumper” is specific to 3794 (and its variants) and then to 87580 and
then to 34103. That’s only 3 (or 5) parts.
All tiles and plates could well be in a unique category (like they mostly are
in LDraw or LDD) but I don’t want it called “jumper”

Help me come up with a better word. We can be famous together.

Author:

bb1237701

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 19:31

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, dkillgore writes:

[…]

Against.

I don’t know why “jumper” was chosen. The similarity with electrical jumpers
(little wires that “jump” over the main circuits, or little thingies to connect
two plots) is tenuous: yes it’s a connector but everything connects in LEGO.
But I believe “jumper” can be taken to mean that the connection “jumps” half
a stud.
Anyway, “jumper” is well engraved as meaning “offset stud” which the missing-studs
plates and having-studs tiles don’t have.

Sylvain, your previous thread-joint reply was appreciated! A Programmer-based
deficiency for sure...

So, truly, what we all need to consider is this:
Is BrickLink, as the premier site for those who have, maybe for the first time,
visited Lego.com to complete sets or begin their life-long passion as a creator
of MOC, or to find long sought after sets from days they remember, to base our
catalogue on Lego.com nomenclature and numbering system to be:

"Buyer Focused" so that they can jump-start their search based on item classifications
and numbers they found off of a set they own or want to recreate...Or, maybe,
just maybe, even more Intuitive! Now that would be something.

Or, wanting to determine the number of categories and number/images to make it
easy to store and access for those selling to pick from to be:
"Seller Focused"

My guess is that there are a lot more first-time potential buyers registering
on here and trying to make sense of what we are doing than long-term hobbyists.

I am always aware of what we may be losing in customer base. Just have a heart
for the ones that you never hear from on the Forum who just can't make sense
of it all...

LOL

or you have a system that needs to change with new elements

or better knowledge on the elements, like Linné’s taxonomy of living beings,
and, well, that no one understands but specialists either

(cont.) LOL

Either way, there’s still a need for a simple way, both for the hoi polloi and
the elite actually, to find a part, or a group of similar parts (whatever “similar”
might mean), in a few clicks.

In a library, the Dewey DC (or another similar system) is used for numbering
the books and the shelves but a patron just needs to talk to a librarian or use
a search tool to find the book they want, they don’t need to know the DDC. And
if a patron browses an alley, they will see similar books, but they won’t see,
for instance, all the books written by the same author if these fall under different
domains.
In a virtual system, like BL, the “patron” can be presented with an “alley” containing
all the plates, or all the parts with pins, or all the 2x2 parts….

In short, what I’m trying to say is you can twist a category system in all the
ways you want, you will still need knowledge to use it, it will still be for
the specialists. To allow newbies to use it, you need a librarian, and this
website should be one.

+++++++++++++1

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 19:26

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, dkillgore writes:

[…]

The problem verily lies within the strict category system, the lack of a parallel
tag system or at least the possibility for a part to appear in more than one
category.

With such a system, either you have a system that plans for anything and everything,
and you end up with the Dewey Decimal Classification for books, that no one understands
but specialists, or you have a system that needs to change with new elements
or better knowledge on the elements, like Linné’s taxonomy of living beings,
and, well, that no one understands but specialists either

Author:

bb1237701

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 19:08

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Yep.

Newbies to this site are told they can find everything here, but the reality
is they're like corpulent bodies with raw meat strapped to them, thrown into
the deep end of the pool where there are sharks with frikkin' lasers!

BrickLink is a very complicated site. Kind of like being strapped into an airplane
cockpit for the first time and, without benefit of any instruction, being told
to fly to a foreign country. There are a lot of things to sort out.

The site needs some genuine marketing savoir faire, plain easy-to-understand
instructions, and a thousand other things. But a good start would be a home page
that says "Welcome to Bricklink" and a big-ass obvious link to "New to Bricklink
Start Here" and a Start Here page with some simple concepts like:

BrickLink is a marketplace where thousands of Lego fans operate independent storefronts.
...and a decent explanation of what that's all about.

BrickLink is a crowdsourced online catalog.
...and a decent explanation of what that's all about.

The Wanted List.

How to buy.

Those four things would go a long way to helping out the newbies. You come here
the first time, it's daunting. Strap tight for your first foray into the
forum.

The other thing, pertinent to the current thread, would be a decent glossary.
That alone ought to help sort out or crystallize concepts relative to language
(plates vs tiles) and other concepts.

mfav you are truly awesome!

So, Air Force UPT, Undergraduate Pilot Training:
You are in the bowels of Southern Texas heat- the instructor sits in the back
seat of the two seat Grumman.
Tell you over the helmet mike, "Put your left glove on but leave the right one
off."

Ten minutes in to your first g-Force loop: You, to your instructor, "I'm
not feeling so good..."

He says, "Take your right hand glove."

"Okay", you say.

Next you tell him you're gonna Hurl.

He says, "That's what your right glove it for."

"Okay", you say after purging, "I'm better."

Your instructor says, "Now, put your right glove on."
...as you prepare to land.

True story...

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 18:57

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

Author:

bb1237701

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 17:57

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:

I would like to see the Tile Modified ones that have studs moved to Plate Modified.
I vote yes.

I am torn. I feel like having studs is characteristic of the plate and not having
studs is characteristic of the tile. Is it possible to have a new category specifically
for tiles that have some studs and plates that have some flat space? The most
obvious (to me) name for the category would be Jumpers, but I don't really
know how that word came to be used the way Lego uses it.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 17:21

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify

Keep it simple. A tile does not have studs. So if it has studs, then it is a
plate.

That's how I see things, also, but we will have to hold off on this debate
for a bit until Marek and I can get our plates cleared off to focus on catalog
projects again.[…]

Well done

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 17:09

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify

Keep it simple. A tile does not have studs. So if it has studs, then it is a
plate.

That's how I see things, also, but we will have to hold off on this debate
for a bit until Marek and I can get our plates cleared off to focus on catalog
projects again.

Marek is currently working through a huge catalog backlog that had accumulated
after Robert's departure, and I am currently in the mix of all the new sets
that were released as of April 1.

I just wanted to let everyone know that Marek and I have not forgotten what Robert
started, and we are keen to get to it in due time.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 16:25

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify

Keep it simple. A tile does not have studs. So if it has studs, then it is a
plate.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 16:06

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, dkillgore writes:

[…]
Just going to put this out there and wait for the bashing,
Why not put them in both categories?

The database won’t allow it.
A part can only be in one category.
Because they are “categories,” not “tags.”

A tag system was asked for, many times.

Author:

bb1237701

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 15:32

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves

3030a Plate 4 x 10 with Groove
Parts: Plate

and tiles/plates variants with and without groove

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

92593 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs without Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(And the jumpers too….)

Yeah... the fact that there's a variation that would span across categories
if you take the groove as the defining factor, kind of kills that idea pretty
effectively.

Anyway, in my opinion it's not a huge deal that it's not perfect. TileMod
and PlateMod are two fairly big categories, nicely sized if you ask me. God forbid
someone would decide to merge them together because there's no principal
distinction possible. I'd rather put up with a bit of inconsistency that's
very easy to learn, than one huge category that is difficult to manage, both
in terms of browsing it online as well as storing it for me and other stores
who have category based sorting..
And we have the forum for venting inconsistency frustrations, which works pretty
well too

Just going to put this out there and wait for the bashing,
Why not put them in both categories?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 15:19

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:

I would like to see the Tile Modified ones that have studs moved to Plate Modified.
I vote yes.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:39

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, velocity.rex writes:

I get a little annoyed every time I encounter this piece.

88287 Minifigure, Headgear Headdress Desert Head Wrap Keffiyeh
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

It's always the same cycle, I search "turban" because it's very similar
to a turban.
and all that pops up are these;

40235 Minifigure, Headgear Turban with Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

18822 Minifigure, Headgear Turban without Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

So then I remember that the piece I'm looking for is on a few of the Prince
of Persia minifigs so I go to catalog, minifigs, prince of persia, and then scroll
until I find one with the matching headgear, and then drill down into it's
inventory to find that it's called a "Keffiyeh"

to which my response is, "oh, well, I'll probably never remember that..."

I wish the description was "Headgear Headdress Cloth Wrap Keffiyeh (Turban)"
even if it's not technically a turban. It would help me find it faster in
the future.

At any rate, taking the time to type this all out should help me remember in
the future and I discovered that one only has to type "kef*" in the headgear
search and this pops up so I should be able to remember those 3 letters at least
going forward.

Took me awhile to remember "kepi" for this part too, but I remembered eventually.

30135 Minifigure, Headgear Cavalry Cap (Kepi)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

I requested during this thread to have the piece changed to its current name,
removing a word that didn't belong and adding some what will hopefully make
it more searchable. I would oppose adding the word "turban" to it. It isn't
a turban or even sort of a turban.

One of my first catalog requests several years ago was to change

30154 Minifigure, Utensil Sextant / Quadrant
Parts: Minifigure, Utensil

from
a sextant, which it isn't, to a quadrant. The catmin at the time compromised
by adding both words. I understand why it was done. Sextant IS a much better
known term and people are generally unaware of the difference, but it has always
stuck in my mind that it is too bad we need to have wrong words so that people
will find things in wrong searches.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:39

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves

3030a Plate 4 x 10 with Groove
Parts: Plate

and tiles/plates variants with and without groove

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

92593 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs without Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(And the jumpers too….)

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:32

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves

3030a Plate 4 x 10 with Groove
Parts: Plate

and tiles/plates variants with and without groove

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

92593 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs without Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(And the jumpers too….)

In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:31

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:

I would like to see the Tile Modified ones that have studs moved to Plate Modified.
I vote yes.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:27

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves

3030a Plate 4 x 10 with Groove
Parts: Plate

and tiles/plates variants with and without groove

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

92593 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs without Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(And the jumpers too….)

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:18

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:15

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

There is no consistency, both could be either.

You could say the parent of 6576 is either a 4x8 plate or 4x8 tile, but the 4x8
tile doesn't exist so 6576 must be a modified plate.

Or you could say you add 12 studs to the tile or remove 20 studs from the plate,
so it is closer to being a tile than a plate.

For 88646, neither the parent tile or plate exist. You add 4 studs to the tile,
but remove 8 from the plate and also have to shift them. So does that make it
a modified tile rather than modified plate?

If so, then the 1x2 jumper should be a modified tile (add one stud, vs remove
and move one stud). Similarly a 2x2 jumper is definitely closer to a tile than
a plate but is still a modified plate. Worse still, this pack of jumper bricks:

10115-1 (Inv) Jumper Bricks
80 Parts, 2001
Sets: Bulk Bricks

contains no bricks at all.

33909 Tile, Modified 2 x 2 with Studs on Edge
Parts: Tile, Modified

is clearly a 2x2 plate with two studs removed, but it is a modified tile.

6180 Tile, Modified 4 x 6 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

is also a modified tile rather than plate (compare to 6576).

Exactly, the jumpers always seemed much more tile-like to me than that "tile".

I guess the only relevant answer to this issue is: This was acknowledged by the
previous catmin Stormchaser, he said the concepts of plate and tile needed to
be principally redefined before these things could be classified properly. If
that's also what the new catalog management will do is not yet clear. Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 12:39

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:

I would like to see the Tile Modified ones that have studs moved to Plate Modified.
I vote yes.

For now we don't touch it till we have definitions and project with number
8 on the list will come live.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476

Author:

velocity.rex

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 12:14

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bje writes:

You want to try and remember bicorne - usually I have to search through pirates
minifigs to get that %^^$%@ name. You might want to bookmark this page. It at
least gives the starting point names of some hat/headdress styles with images,
since I can never remember any of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat

LOL, I feel ya! Similar to my newly acquired "Kef*", I've remembered to type
"bi*" or "tri*" when looking for a pirate hat.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 03:12

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

So you taking about parts which won't be moved between categories for now,
insted of discussing this https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1135995

I really would like to hear opinions about if you do want them to be moved
or we just leave them as they are.

Author:

randyipp

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 14:31

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, velocity.rex writes:

I get a little annoyed every time I encounter this piece.

88287 Minifigure, Headgear Headdress Desert Head Wrap Keffiyeh
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

It's always the same cycle, I search "turban" because it's very similar
to a turban.
and all that pops up are these;

40235 Minifigure, Headgear Turban with Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

18822 Minifigure, Headgear Turban without Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

30135 Minifigure, Headgear Cavalry Cap (Kepi)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

You can request a change, to add the word turban to it. https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P

For example, Katana was added to this one:

30173b Minifigure, Weapon Sword, Shamshir/Katana (Square Guard) with Uncapped Pommel and Hole in Hilt
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon

Fortunately, the more basic "sword" was also kept!

Thanks for posting that, there are a vast amount of heads in the 2010 era that
are really poorly named and I was just too lazy to look for this request. Hopefully
I will get to submitting some.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 12:58

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

Well, I’m sure there’s peacockery somewhere (bad, bad pun) but “corne” is a common
term in French for angled/folded —wait for it— corners!
Yes the English “corner” is about horns too

Of course, Little Jack Horner sat in the corner ...

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 12:37

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bje writes:

[…]
Wish
I could read Proust, Balzac, Littel and few others in original French.

Me too

(I lack the courage.)

Bicorne = two horns
There are tricorne hats too (three horns).

Horny hats will be even more difficult to remember, it is not a concept I usually
associate with hats or caps.

Well, I’m sure there’s peacockery somewhere (bad, bad pun) but “corne” is a common
term in French for angled/folded —wait for it— corners!
Yes the English “corner” is about horns too

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 12:35

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

You’ll note that on that page, keffiyeh is spelled keffiyah.
(While the wiktionary lists kaffiyah, kufiya, and kufiyah as alternative spellings,
but not keffiyah.)

Spellings and especially accents are a real pain.

My claim to fame is that I managed to get "Palantir" added to "Palantír".

54821pb02 Ball, Bionicle Zamor Sphere with Marbled Trans-Yellow Pattern (Palantír, Palantir)
Parts: Ball

Not only didn't I know there was an accent on the i, as an English speaker/writer
I haven't a clue how to add an accent anyway so would never have been able
to search for it.

I tried similar for Joachim Low, Mesut Ozil, and so on, but they were rejected.

For some reason, Jérôme (Jerome) Boateng is allowed as a minifigure name only,
but as a set he is just Jérôme Boateng. The one that is a pain is André Schürrle,
as he has an accent in both names so cannot be searched unless you can enter
accents or cut and paste his name. Quicker to just search for "DFB" instead.

coldfb-3 (Inv) Jérôme Boateng, Deutscher Fussball-Bund / DFB (Complete Set with Stand and Accessories)
2 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2016
Sets: Collectible Minifigures: Deutscher Fussball-Bund / DFB

Minifig No: dfb003 Name: Jérôme Boateng, Deutscher Fussball-Bund / DFB (Minifigure Only without Stand and Accessories)

dfb003 (Inv) Jérôme Boateng, Deutscher Fussball-Bund / DFB (Minifigure Only without Stand and Accessories)
Minifigures: Collectible Minifigures: Deutscher Fussball-Bund / DFB

Author:

bje

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 12:18

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, bje writes:

You want to try and remember bicorne - usually I have to search through pirates
minifigs to get that %^^$%@ name.

I’ll excuse your French as it so happens that “%^^$%@” could indeed be replaced
by “French”.

That will not do as my French writing is already limited to some swear words,
cooking terms from Larousse and a bit here and there from a few novels. Wish
I could read Proust, Balzac, Littel and few others in original French.

Bicorne = two horns
There are tricorne hats too (three horns).

Horny hats will be even more difficult to remember, it is not a concept I usually
associate with hats or caps.

You might want to bookmark this page. It at
least gives the starting point names of some hat/headdress styles with images,
since I can never remember any of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat

You’ll note that on that page, keffiyeh is spelled keffiyah.
(While the wiktionary lists kaffiyah, kufiya, and kufiyah as alternative spellings,
but not keffiyah.)

Finding it through Prince of Persia minifigures might be quicker than searching
the wikipedia page then trying all the possible spellings

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 11:56

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bje writes:

You want to try and remember bicorne - usually I have to search through pirates
minifigs to get that %^^$%@ name.

I’ll excuse your French as it so happens that “%^^$%@” could indeed be replaced
by “French”.

Bicorne = two horns
There are tricorne hats too (three horns).

You might want to bookmark this page. It at
least gives the starting point names of some hat/headdress styles with images,
since I can never remember any of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 11:43

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

This comes up time and time again and is a great question.

The current answer is "Who knows?"

However, the admins have noted the need to do something. If you look on the Catalog
Roadmap, this project is #8 under the Projects Under Consideration heading:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 11:29

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, velocity.rex writes:

I get a little annoyed every time I encounter this piece.

88287 Minifigure, Headgear Headdress Desert Head Wrap Keffiyeh
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

It's always the same cycle, I search "turban" because it's very similar
to a turban.
and all that pops up are these;

40235 Minifigure, Headgear Turban with Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

18822 Minifigure, Headgear Turban without Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

30135 Minifigure, Headgear Cavalry Cap (Kepi)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

You can request a change, to add the word turban to it. https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P

For example, Katana was added to this one:

30173b Minifigure, Weapon Sword, Shamshir/Katana (Square Guard) with Uncapped Pommel and Hole in Hilt
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon

Fortunately, the more basic "sword" was also kept!

Author:

bje

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 11:24

Subject:

Re: Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

I get a little annoyed every time I encounter this piece.

88287 Minifigure, Headgear Headdress Desert Head Wrap Keffiyeh
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

It's always the same cycle, I search "turban" because it's very similar
to a turban.
and all that pops up are these;

40235 Minifigure, Headgear Turban with Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

18822 Minifigure, Headgear Turban without Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

30135 Minifigure, Headgear Cavalry Cap (Kepi)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

Author:

velocity.rex

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 11:17

Subject:

Keffiyeh vs Turban

Viewed:

111 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I get a little annoyed every time I encounter this piece.

88287 Minifigure, Headgear Headdress Desert Head Wrap Keffiyeh
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

It's always the same cycle, I search "turban" because it's very similar
to a turban.
and all that pops up are these;

40235 Minifigure, Headgear Turban with Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

18822 Minifigure, Headgear Turban without Hole
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

30135 Minifigure, Headgear Cavalry Cap (Kepi)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:39

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, POPS_BLOCK_SHOP writes:

Just Ask Bricklink to change the description of what you think is wrong. I have
been doing the last few weeks and they have changed the description on everything
I asked them to.

Example

Item No: 14769pb196
Used to have title
Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Tree Trunk Pattern

I was searching for Wood Grain which was not in the description at all. Not "Wood"
or "Grain"

I sent request and within 2 days they updated it to

Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Tree Trunk, Wood Grain Pattern

I also made a youtube video on how to submit such things to help make bricklink
better!

https://youtu.be/H3M6AlhoEUM

While names are updated quickly, I doubt that they will update categories so
freely. Some people sort and store by type, and to just move a part from one
type to another is not something they should do without careful thought.

Author:

POPS_BLOCK_SHOP

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:31

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:14

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

10115-1 (Inv) Jumper Bricks
80 Parts, 2001
Sets: Bulk Bricks

contains no bricks at all.

33909 Tile, Modified 2 x 2 with Studs on Edge
Parts: Tile, Modified

is clearly a 2x2 plate with two studs removed, but it is a modified tile.

6180 Tile, Modified 4 x 6 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

is also a modified tile rather than plate (compare to 6576).

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:11

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

I’d have said it’s the number of studs (or ratio). Something like 50%+1 of studs
missing means it’s a tile, but some “tiles” have 50% of their studs and some
“plates” have less than 50% of their studs.

Plates:

3794 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud, Jumper (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Plate, Modified

(and variants)

34103 Plate, Modified 1 x 3 with 2 Studs (Double Jumper)
Parts: Plate, Modified

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(and variant)

87580 Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Groove and 1 Stud in Center (Jumper)
Parts: Plate, Modified

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

4607 Plate, Modified 4 x 16 with 24 studs
Parts: Plate, Modified

Tiles:

33909 Tile, Modified 2 x 2 with Studs on Edge
Parts: Tile, Modified

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

6179 Tile, Modified 4 x 4 with Studs on Edge
Parts: Tile, Modified

6180 Tile, Modified 4 x 6 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

6178 Tile, Modified 6 x 12 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

6205 Tile, Modified 6 x 16 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

Author:

JusTiCe8

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:10

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

75 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

Good question, I have identified a lot more inconsistencies, some with plates
and tiles too, as some parts are identified as plate, some as tile...

AFAIK a tile is flat with sometime something added/removed (a stud, a hole, a
hook, whatever), a plate is full of studs, but could we allow studs to be removed
and still consider it as a plate ?
Or such plate mutate/evolve into a tile ?

There are more in Technic/Bionicle/Hero Factory parts, slope/inverted slope.
(Technic looks like a bin where parts have been put there by default, as there
are parts which may have never been included in a Technic set, like 45799, balls
like 32474pb008 too but I can't be sure.

My guess is someone has to choose in a hurry and didn't think too much of
what must go to where, then noone fix this and we have some hard to understand
categories for such parts.

these parts:
2744pb008
2744pb012L
2744pb012R
2744pb017L
2744pb017R

are in Technic, could be "Slope decorated" or "Technic/Slope decorated".

Turntable like 2856c01 or 48452cx1 are in Technic, not in Turntable.

Tecnic disks mixed all together:
2958

with
2958pb042
2958pb012
2958pb037
...

2815 could be in "tires & threads".

There are more with cylinders which contains... half-spheres or domes (ouch !
someone need to review his/her basic geometry I guess

)

Finally 24201 is in slope curved, could be in inverted slope (as its main feature
is to be inverted first then curved).

Author:

tpr

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 10:06

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

A plate by definition has studs
A tile by definition is flat, no studs.

Surely a modified plate should have more studs than flat area and vice versa
for tiles

A lot of these type of items are split between tiles and modified plates

tpr

Author:

edk

Posted:

Apr 8, 2019 09:41

Subject:

inconsistencies

Viewed:

213 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

Author:

jonwil

Posted:

Apr 7, 2019 07:29

Subject:

About part 60208

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Should

60208 Wheel 31mm D. x 15mm Technic
Parts: Wheel

really be classified as a wheel when (to the best of my knowledge)
its never ever been used as a wheel nor had a tyre made that fits it?

The official LEGO parts database classifies

2695 Wheel 30mm D. x 13mm (13 x 24 Model Team)
Parts: Wheel

as a hub but it classifies

60208 Wheel 31mm D. x 15mm Technic
Parts: Wheel

as a turbine.

I believe the part should be renamed since its clearly not a wheel (even if it
happens to be vaguely similar to a different unrelated part that IS used as a
wheel)

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 6, 2019 03:03

Subject:

Re: Set 40334 - Avengers Tower

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, InqMikhailovich writes:

This is mostly just a matter of curiosity, but I seem to remember the celebratory
microscale Avengers Tower having had an entry on here previously, and now I can't
find it. Why might that be?

Brickset page: https://brickset.com/sets/40334-1/Avengers-Tower

It is pending approval:

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=40334-1#T=S&O={%22cond%22:%22N%22,%22rpp%22:%22500%22,%22iconly%22:0}

I don't believe it has been released to the general public yet, so BrickLink
will not approve it until it has been officially released.

Cheers,
Randy

According to Brickset here
https://brickset.com/article/43089/40335-space-rocket-ride-found-in-croatia

"40334 Avengers Tower will be the GWP later this month, from 19th April to 2nd
May, with a spend of $75 on Super Heroes sets."

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 6, 2019 02:50

Subject:

Re: Set 40334 - Avengers Tower

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, InqMikhailovich writes:

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Apr 6, 2019 02:29

Subject:

Re: Set 75048

Viewed:

23 times

Topic: