Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 00:34 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Can we turn it back to mm like it has always been?
|
Actually, cm is the original standard of the site. Is there any particular reason
you prefer mm?
|
That's what I've been doing the whole time with the packaging dimensions.
|
They are actually still stored in the system as mm, but we didn't want the
catalog upload forms to use two different measurement standards. All of the dimensions
you entered through the Forum Topic are still in the system and attributed to
your username. They are displayed as cm, though, on the catalog detail page.
|
 |
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 22:39 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Can we turn it back to mm like it has always been?
|
Actually, cm is the original standard of the site. Is there any particular reason
you prefer mm?
|
That's what I've been doing the whole time with the packaging dimensions.
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Can we turn it back to mm like it has always been?
|
Actually, cm is the original standard of the site. Is there any particular reason
you prefer mm?
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 20:54 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Can we turn it back to mm like it has always been?
In Catalog, BasKrie writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Good progress. The big splash will be when we can search our inventory for pieces
missing packing dimensions.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
All, please note that the dimensions you fill in are CM (not MM), I now see very
large items coming up.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=87079pb912#T=C&C=110
for example. It is a 2x4 tile, but now has dimensions "Pack. Dim.: 16 x 32 x
3 cm"
|
|
|
| Author: | Bricks2Love | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 16:48 | | Subject: | Re: Sets missing on Bricklink | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, daniel2009 writes:
| | Hi!
I am collecting for a Museum with Pinball Machines and LEGO® Sets in Neulengbach
(near Vienna AUSTRIA) and figured out, that many LEGO® Education Sets are not
listed on BrickLink (eg 9781-1 MINDSTORMS® FIRST® LEGO® League Start Set with
Mindstorms AND Robolab Software) even thogh I have them. How can I add them?
Also a lot Sets (eg 953009-1 Control Lab Teachers Project Guide) are missing
photos and inventory - how can I add them?
thanks for your answer
Website of Museum: http://kinderkram.eitle.at
|
Hi, would you share pictures of the set 9781-1 with me? ill try to complet this
rare set.
Kind regards Guido
Guido@briks2love.com
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BasKrie writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Good progress. The big splash will be when we can search our inventory for pieces
missing packing dimensions.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
All, please note that the dimensions you fill in are CM (not MM), I now see very
large items coming up.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=87079pb912#T=C&C=110
for example. It is a 2x4 tile, but now has dimensions "Pack. Dim.: 16 x 32 x
3 cm"
|
It's going to take some getting used to. I just fixed that one.
|
|
| Author: | razorflan | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker part 2335pb164 sticker orientation | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, razorflan writes:
| | Set 70906 part 2335pb164 the sticker in the image for this part is applied incorectly.
Just check the image for set 70906 clips are at the top 'bang' 😲
|
It's applied correctly in the catalog - we use instructions as reference
for sticker application not set images.
Paul.
|
Hmmm... think I will sell my flags with stickers on sheet & let the buyer decide
I'm not sure which way I prefer now
|
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker part 2335pb164 sticker orientation | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, razorflan writes:
| | Set 70906 part 2335pb164 the sticker in the image for this part is applied incorectly.
Just check the image for set 70906 clips are at the top 'bang' 😲
|
It's applied correctly in the catalog - we use instructions as reference
for sticker application not set images.
Paul.
|
| Author: | razorflan | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 14:28 | | Subject: | Sticker part 2335pb164 sticker orientation | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Set 70906 part 2335pb164 the sticker in the image for this part is applied incorectly.
Just check the image for set 70906 clips are at the top 'bang' 😲
|
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | | So you have to exclude a part with any dimension over 20mm? That doesn't
seem like it would work very well. A 1x6x5 brick can easily fit but only one
of its dimensions is less than 20mm.
|
Sorry that's my mistake in how I described it because I said any dimension
(and that's not accurate). I think it's oversized only on the triple
dimensions because like you said, a brick is flat and is over 2cm in two dimensions,
but not the 3rd ("height") so it fits. So for example, when I manually set packing
dimensions, I haven't even been bothering measuring the exact dimensions
since it's just for me (how it was currently), so I would set all 3 dimensions
to 25mm.
|
|
| Author: | Brick.Door | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Emporiosa writes:
| | In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | How will this be used? Will we be able to set up a shipping method that is only
allowed if all pieces are under a certain thickness? (i.i USPS large envelope/flat)
So the checkout would need to find the smallest of the three dimensions for each
element in the cart, and make sure it is below the threshold.
Or is it just to better approximate the total volume of the order?
|
It's already very much in use with Canadians sellers; it can jump from a
$1.94 stamp to $22 if the part is over 20mm in thickness. Canadian sellers have
been manually putting in the packaging dimensions for every oversized item (and
setting those items to Volume based).
What you do is set the packaging limits (if you have any for USPS) in the shipping
option like you mentioned, and it ensures that if there's a thickness maximum
(like the 20mm in Canada for Lettermail), that no part has any dimension that
goes over that. There's also general volumetric dimensions that you can set
where it's to try to calculate if "that much LEGO" can fit into what you
gave it, but I'm not entirely sure how well this part works.
|
So you have to exclude a part with any dimension over 20mm? That doesn't
seem like it would work very well. A 1x6x5 brick can easily fit but only one
of its dimensions is less than 20mm.
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
|
I love seeing these kinds of new features for sellers being implemented! Thank-you
so much! 
A feature to add later which would be fantastic (which another site has been
doing) would be to have a direct link (probably on the "My BL" page), that takes
us to a list of all of our inventory that has missing packing dimensions. The
benefit is that you'll get the catalogue populated more quickly as sellers
will be directed to items that they know they have on hand as part of their inventory.
And then of course, perhaps a link in the Catalogue section to all parts missing
packing dimensions (for general catalogue contributors).
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | How will this be used? Will we be able to set up a shipping method that is only
allowed if all pieces are under a certain thickness? (i.i USPS large envelope/flat)
So the checkout would need to find the smallest of the three dimensions for each
element in the cart, and make sure it is below the threshold.
Or is it just to better approximate the total volume of the order?
|
It's already very much in use with Canadians sellers; it can jump from a
$1.94 stamp to $22 if the part is over 20mm in thickness. Canadian sellers have
been manually putting in the packaging dimensions for every oversized item (and
setting those items to Volume based).
What you do is set the packaging limits (if you have any for USPS) in the shipping
option like you mentioned, and it ensures that if there's a thickness maximum
(like the 20mm in Canada for Lettermail), that no part has any dimension that
goes over that. There's also general volumetric dimensions that you can set
where it's to try to calculate if "that much LEGO" can fit into what you
gave it, but I'm not entirely sure how well this part works.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 10:38 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | My friend here likes this post
|
That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.
Jen
|
Or you might want one of these 
|
Nope, I'm old-school analog all the way! Here's my scale....lol.
Jen
|
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 10:00 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Ok I tested it for a bit. I added 20 things, bricks from disparate themes, even
a power transformator id 70928.
I think the new page is good. I can add stud- and packing-dimensions at the same
time. There is some error checking on our measures, preventing blunders. Zero
is allowed, we can use that with multiple meanings, better to give us guidance
maybe?
We disperately need the search engine now.
I spent hundreds of clicks just to find parts needing a caliper job. I won't
do that again (note: I'm not seller so can't fiddle with that famous
flag)
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 09:57 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | My friend here likes this post
|
That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.
Jen
|
Or you might want one of these
|
|
|
| Author: | Vosblokjes | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 09:53 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Good progress. The big splash will be when we can search our inventory for pieces
missing packing dimensions.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
All, please note that the dimensions you fill in are CM (not MM), I now see very
large items coming up.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=87079pb912#T=C&C=110
for example. It is a 2x4 tile, but now has dimensions "Pack. Dim.: 16 x 32 x
3 cm"
|
|
| Author: | Brick.Door | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| How will this be used? Will we be able to set up a shipping method that is only
allowed if all pieces are under a certain thickness? (i.i USPS large envelope/flat)
So the checkout would need to find the smallest of the three dimensions for each
element in the cart, and make sure it is below the threshold.
Or is it just to better approximate the total volume of the order?
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 09:10 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | My friend here likes this post
|
That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.
Jen
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 07:07 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | My friend here likes this post |
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 06:01 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Good progress. The big splash will be when we can search our inventory for pieces
missing packing dimensions.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
|
| Author: | Mr_Rofl | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 04:06 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Finally!
A few questions about this feature.
Are the dimensions also available in the API? Or do we need to scrape the from
the different pages?
Does IC still use the 0 and ? as 0 (zero)thickness or will this be an manual
invoice type only?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 03:59 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.
|
Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:
|
There is also a typo on the hell page for the flattened tractor box. It should
be 0.2cm not 0.02cm.
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 03:20 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.
|
Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 03:16 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 6, 2021 01:30 | | Subject: | New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 321 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| We are pleased to announce that a major new feature was deployed to the catalog
today - Packing Dimensions!
We started a Packaging Dimensions Topic in the Forum in the Fall of 2017 so that
members could input dimensions to help Instant Checkout work properly. It was
only supposed to be a temporary solution, and it took a lot of time and dedication
for both contributors and admins to handle each request manually.
Now there is much better way - just input the data like you would any other catalog
data. Notice the upgrade to the Change Item form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
The first thing, though, that we want to tell you about this new feature is that
it's only a start. This is actually just phase 1 out of 3 phases. We did
it this way so we could get the basic functionality opened up as soon as possible.
This means that the Add Item form does not have Packing Dimensions input fields,
and we haven't touched the seller interface either which still shows millimeters
and only allows the upload of custom dimensions.
We are also a bit behind on the new Help Page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2510
There are 4 areas we still need to tackle with the Help Page: Minifigures, Gear,
Books, and Catalogs. Those sections will be filled out over the next few days.
If you could please hold off on uploading dimensions for those Item Types until
the Help Pages are finished, it would be appreciated.
As you may have noticed, we changed the name from Packaging Dimensions to Packing
Dimensions. Let us know what you think and of course report any bugs. And there
is no need to post in the Packaging Dimensions Topic any more. We'll keep
it there for a while in case something happens to our new system, but when we
wrap up with phase 3, we will officially decommission that part of the Forum.
|
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 4, 2021 20:24 | | Subject: | Re: Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
I'm preparing a statement about this current round of changes that will help
explain the decisions that were made.
|
Bump.
|
|
| Author: | beaverbrick | | Posted: | Apr 4, 2021 05:11 | | Subject: | Re: New entry??? | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| You can submit a request to add the part to the catalog here...
https://www.bricklink.com/wantedCatalog.asp?catType=P
I guess if you're asking how to add it, you're not familiar with adding
parts so some quick help...
Note: this stickered part has left and right sided versions.
Category = Brick, Decorated
Item No = 3009pb238L (I just checked and this is the next available number, L
is for left)
Item Name = I usually copy and paste the name of another 1x6 brick stickered
(with left and right sides)
part (3009pb*), then change the description to suit. Remember to change the set
number at the end of the description.
As soon as the part has been submitted, you should add an image here...
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page?itemType=P
Once the part has been approved to the catalog, you can then add it the set's
inventory here...
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChange.asp?itemType=S
Hope this helps
In Catalog, roguemjr writes:
| | To whom it may concern:
Is it possible to create an assembly for the attached 1x6 yellow brick with driver
side sticker from set 5510-1? I see there is another assembly for another sticker
for this part. Or how should I list this part to found by people who may be
looking for it.
Thanks,
roguemjr
|
|
|
| Author: | Ddriver | | Posted: | Apr 4, 2021 02:15 | | Subject: | Re: tls095 Lego Employee, Kidsfest 2013 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I think its good to make a note like:
"The Minifigur is the same as the "Creativity Tour 2014", but with another blister
pack image." 👍
Best regards Daniel & stay healthy.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Maybe it would be better to create a new set entry for that blister pack set?
Like
for example.
|
|
| Author: | Ddriver | | Posted: | Apr 4, 2021 02:07 | | Subject: | Re: tls095 Lego Employee, Kidsfest 2013 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| THX a lot for that. 👍
Best regards Daniel & stay healthy.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
| Author: | roguemjr | | Posted: | Apr 4, 2021 01:46 | | Subject: | New entry??? | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| To whom it may concern:
Is it possible to create an assembly for the attached 1x6 yellow brick with driver
side sticker from set 5510-1? I see there is another assembly for another sticker
for this part. Or how should I list this part to found by people who may be
looking for it.
Thanks,
roguemjr
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 3, 2021 12:10 | | Subject: | Re: tls095 Lego Employee, Kidsfest 2013 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Maybe it would be better to create a new set entry for that blister pack set?
Like
for example.
|
|
| Author: | Ddriver | | Posted: | Apr 3, 2021 02:53 | | Subject: | tls095 Lego Employee, Kidsfest 2013 | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello,
On the article page of "TLS095 LEGO EMPLOYEE, MALE WITH Apron, Lego Store at
Kidsfest 2013" is a wrong picture where the Minifigur shows in the blister.
The picture with blister is from the "Creativity Tour 2014" and not from the
Kids Festival 2013.
The right picture is attached here.
Where can I report that because the user who does make the changes on the page
can not be notified by mail, as this user has blocked the mail?
Best regards Daniel.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 2, 2021 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Kids Go Free Vouchers | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, melbourne_josh writes:
I asked this some time ago and got this reply:
It is ephemera. We're still not sure exactly what place ephemera will
occupy in the BrickLink catalog in the future (or if it will have a place at
all). We're not even certain how we're going to define the term. Until
we get it figured out, we're trying not to add any ephemera. This particular
item was mistakenly approved.
I kind of understand it, it will be hard to keep a catalog of everything Lego
ever produces... Wish we could.
|
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 11:12 | | Subject: | Re: Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
I'm preparing a statement about this current round of changes that will help
explain the decisions that were made. But real quick, while I am reading this,
I can let you know that all three of those parts WERE included in the original
list. They were listed under the 2 x 2 corner as related parts that would also
be moved.
Two of them were moved, and two remained behind.
|
Oh... ok; that explains it. Perhaps in the future parts with totally different
shapes shouldn't be under the related parts. I understand the variations
and decorated items, but I wouldn't of thought that the corner and cross
as related.
But anyway, thank you for your response and communication. It is appreciated
by many, I'm sure, even if they don't say so. I look forward to your
statement as I hope that will clear up some of the confusion of this round.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 10:54 | | Subject: | Re: Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | And am I seeing it right that there are some additions (especially the category
changes) which were not part of the original list that was published one month
ago? Despite the fact that it was said there would not be any additions to that
list after March 1st?
|
Yeah, that cross plate was NOT in the list before; I'm certain. Also the
Arch name change; they literally had a statement on that page a couple days ago
saying that no category name changes or additions would be approved.
Hopefully the new method that Stormchaser has mentioned will help with this confusion.
|
I'm preparing a statement about this current round of changes that will help
explain the decisions that were made. But real quick, while I am reading this,
I can let you know that all three of those parts WERE included in the original
list. They were listed under the 2 x 2 corner as related parts that would also
be moved.
Two of them were moved, and two remained behind.
|
|
| Author: | grimsbricksuk | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 10:38 | | Subject: | Re: Jek-14 sw475/sw475a | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| There are dozens of minifig heads that are produced in other non standard colours,
known as test prints.
Produced in batches and given away by Lego which then make their way into the
market.
In Catalog, davidschweer writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
I have one in my collection and have been confused for years. I have been searching
for information about it but have found none. I originally thought it was a
head to another minifigure completely but it pops up on bricklink under jek.
You have to piece him out and look up just his head but the white variant is
present.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3626cpb1012&colorID=1
Does anyone know any information on this head or where it came from?
|
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 07:45 | | Subject: | Re: Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | And am I seeing it right that there are some additions (especially the category
changes) which were not part of the original list that was published one month
ago? Despite the fact that it was said there would not be any additions to that
list after March 1st?
|
Yeah, that cross plate was NOT in the list before; I'm certain. Also the
Arch name change; they literally had a statement on that page a couple days ago
saying that no category name changes or additions would be approved.
Hopefully the new method that Stormchaser has mentioned will help with this confusion.
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 07:42 | | Subject: | Re: Set numbers in Part Titles | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | There are a lot of stickered or printed part stating the set the come from
at the end of the name, for example
At what number does it become unsuitable to put several sets in the name.
I've seen some with 2 but rarely any with 3. Also, does anyone have an opinion
if they should stay or be removed? Because I would much rather a cleaner, simple
title. It is annoying that some don't have this in their title, even if they
only have 1 or 2 sets.
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
See https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=275787&nID=1224447
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Was it not originally announced that there would be some time for sellers and
anyone else to prepare for these changes? How will that work if the final list
is just published right on the day when the changes are made?
And am I seeing it right that there are some additions (especially the category
changes) which were not part of the original list that was published one month
ago? Despite the fact that it was said there would not be any additions to that
list after March 1st?
Please don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate all the time and effort
you and anyone who is involved are putting into this changes. But with that final
(and rather short) list it feels a bit like a missed opportunity and (regarding
the points mentioned above) yet another instance of bad communication. I am therefore
glad that you will adjust the procedure next time.
As for the changes themselves, I'm fine with them with one exeption: I would
suggest to not move
and
to "Plate, Modified" as long as
has to stay in "Plate". I don't care whether these three parts are in "Plate"
or in "Plate, Modified" but it makes absolutely no sense and creates even more
inconistency to have them in different categories.
|
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 05:08 | | Subject: | Set numbers in Part Titles | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| There are a lot of stickered or printed part stating the set the come from
at the end of the name, for example
At what number does it become unsuitable to put several sets in the name.
I've seen some with 2 but rarely any with 3. Also, does anyone have an opinion
if they should stay or be removed? Because I would much rather a cleaner, simple
title. It is annoying that some don't have this in their title, even if they
only have 1 or 2 sets.
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2021 04:59 | | Subject: | Items Moved Today | | Viewed: | 199 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Everything on this list has been moved except for the last two items:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
We ran into a brief hiccup with those item type changes, but we plan to get them
moved later today. Let us know if you see anything on the list we missed.
As some of you already noticed, the list of moved items is about 1/9th the proposed
size. For a variety of reasons, we weren't able to accomplish the other
changes. This does not necessarily mean they won't happen, but merely that
they aren't happening right now.
For our October 1st, 2021 list, we're doing things differently to reduce
confusion. We'll post a page for that soon and begin listing items between
now and then. We'll lock it down on September 1st and every single item
placed on the October 1st page will be moved.
For anyone wondering about this process, our goal was to reduce confusion about
where things belong in the catalog. The project consisted of two steps:
1. Define in writing what should be in each category.
2. Move parts as necessary to conform with written definitions.
We've completed step one, for the most part (although it's still being
tweaked here and there). Now we're working (slowly) through step two.
Let us know if you have any questions or comments.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 21:58 | | Subject: | Re: 970c00pb0364 description color | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I submitted the change request for you.
In Catalog, moreshelfspace writes:
| | The description for Wonder Woman's legs says they are white markings, but
the piece I have's paint is silver, not white. (So neither a search for "white"
or "boots" turn up any results for the piece)
|
|
| Author: | moreshelfspace | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 21:10 | | Subject: | 970c00pb0364 description color | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The description for Wonder Woman's legs says they are white markings, but
the piece I have's paint is silver, not white. (So neither a search for "white"
or "boots" turn up any results for the piece)
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 19:10 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions of tires | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | Pretty much all the examples, in the completed topic, were posted in mm. It's
an easy translation tho.
|
Oops, sorry. I meant millimeters.
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 18:19 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions of tires | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | I would like to provide a Catalog dimension for
Plus the various part assemblies that include that tire. The change page suggests
that the numbers are in studs. Is this correct, or should I be entering in cm
?
According to my caliper the tire really does measure 30 x 30 x 14 mm.
When entering the dimensions for the assemblies, do I do that with the wheel
inserted in the tire, or with them side by side ? example
Nita Rae
|
It sounds like you are measuring the packaging dimensions for the part. In that
case, you would post them to the Packaging Dimensions forum topic in centimeters.
|
Pretty much all the examples, in the completed topic, were posted in mm. It's
an easy translation tho.
I would love for someone from the catalog packaging team chime in with thoughts
about how to measure tire+wheel assemblies. If the two are to be integrally assembled
prior to shipment, then it would be identical to the tire dimension. If not,
then that really should be spelled out (somehow) on the catalog page so that
sellers know what the game plan is.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions of tires | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | I would like to provide a Catalog dimension for
Plus the various part assemblies that include that tire. The change page suggests
that the numbers are in studs. Is this correct, or should I be entering in cm
?
According to my caliper the tire really does measure 30 x 30 x 14 mm.
When entering the dimensions for the assemblies, do I do that with the wheel
inserted in the tire, or with them side by side ? example
Nita Rae
|
It sounds like you are measuring the packaging dimensions for the part. In that
case, you would post them to the Packaging Dimensions forum topic in centimeters.
The dimensions entry on the catalog change request form is to be used for adding
stud dimensions for width and length and brick dimensions for height to standard
parts that can be easily measured in those terms (such as bricks and plates).
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 14:23 | | Subject: | Dimensions of tires | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I would like to provide a Catalog dimension for
Plus the various part assemblies that include that tire. The change page suggests
that the numbers are in studs. Is this correct, or should I be entering in cm
?
According to my caliper the tire really does measure 30 x 30 x 14 mm.
When entering the dimensions for the assemblies, do I do that with the wheel
inserted in the tire, or with them side by side ? example
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 09:40 | | Subject: | Re: where does this go in the catologue? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SurplusParts writes:
| | I have this poster that i received with the VIP program from Lego when i purchased
the new Ghostbustern ECTO-1.
I wasn't sure where it goes in the catalogue. I looked in Gear osters for
it. I wasn't sure if that is where it goes?
If yes, i am happy to add to the catalogue if it is not already there.
Thanks
|
I don't see it in the catalog either. I would add it as: Gear, Poster. Check
to see if it has a 7 digit number code on it to use as the item number.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | SurplusParts | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2021 07:12 | | Subject: | where does this go in the catologue? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have this poster that i received with the VIP program from Lego when i purchased
the new Ghostbustern ECTO-1.
I wasn't sure where it goes in the catalogue. I looked in Gearosters for
it. I wasn't sure if that is where it goes?
If yes, i am happy to add to the catalogue if it is not already there.
Thanks
|
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 21:17 | | Subject: | Re: Jek-14 sw475/sw475a | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| From an employee or out of the factory. Like this
Obviously not from a set.
In Catalog, davidschweer writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
I have one in my collection and have been confused for years. I have been searching
for information about it but have found none. I originally thought it was a
head to another minifigure completely but it pops up on bricklink under jek.
You have to piece him out and look up just his head but the white variant is
present.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3626cpb1012&colorID=1
Does anyone know any information on this head or where it came from?
|
|
|
| Author: | davidschweer | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: Jek-14 sw475/sw475a | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
I have one in my collection and have been confused for years. I have been searching
for information about it but have found none. I originally thought it was a
head to another minifigure completely but it pops up on bricklink under jek.
You have to piece him out and look up just his head but the white variant is
present.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3626cpb1012&colorID=1
Does anyone know any information on this head or where it came from?
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Everything on that page is tentative at this point. But I can confirm that all
the ones that currently are marked APPROVED will approved April 1. The other
ones are still under review.
|
Thank you for the reply, Russell. Who does the reviewing? Would it be possible
to put a small paragraph or two briefly describing the review process on that
page so we can be a little more informed as to what exactly happens?
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Everything on that page is tentative at this point. But I can confirm that all
the ones that currently are marked APPROVED will approved April 1. The other
ones are still under review.
|
Dear Russell,
Thanks for this info. But can you elaborate on this review process? Who is doing
the review, why, and what kind of criteria are taken into consideration?
I think this kind of information would really help us understand and hence be
more understanding about the delays or the way things are done.
Best regards,
Hans-Peter
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 12:59 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Everything on that page is tentative at this point. But I can confirm that all
the ones that currently are marked APPROVED will approved April 1. The other
ones are still under review.
|
If that is the case, could you change it to say "UNDER REVIEW" rather than "NOT
APPROVED" then? There is a big divide between those two sets of words.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Everything on that page is tentative at this point. But I can confirm that all
the ones that currently are marked APPROVED will approved April 1. The other
ones are still under review.
|
|
| Author: | skvely | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Super Heroes | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The Spider-Man sets were back in the early 2000s and were branded as LEGO Spider-Man
and LEGO Spider-Man 2 for the early Sony films. (Technically, some of them were
a subtheme of LEGO Studios, but the decision to include them in Spider-Man was
made a long time ago.)
The Batman I sets were back in the late 2000s and were branded as LEGO Batman.
Both of these themes were way before LEGO Super Heroes came along, so they have
a special place in the catalog hierarchy.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I guess it depends on what the purpose of the categories is. If it is to mirror
the "series" as defined by Lego, or give Bricklink users logical groupings of
items so they can find sets they want. But even if it's the former, unless
there's some official Lego categories I don't know about, Marvel sets
are branded "Marvel" not "Super Heroes", and "Marvel" is a distinct Theme on
the website, as is "DC".
Just seems dumb to have arbitrary distinctions in some instances, but not in
others, and both in ways that are not intuitive or helpful for buyers.
|
|
| Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | I'm curious as to Stormchaser's view on this. Most of the edits to that
page were done by Stormchaser, but the last update was by Russell... so it seems
to me Russell is behind the sudden "not approved" items; was Stormchaser in agreement
though?
|
Well, I hope there will be an announcement about what is and what is not being
approved instead of finding out on the forum via a curious BL member. Unfortunately,
we won't hear a thing about all the juicy details involved in BL's office
politics on the forum. Stormchaser's view will be the company's view
if he wants to keep his job. But perhaps our new community engagement officer
can let the community know what's going on.
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Oh, seems all the work was for nothing, a big shame for the Bricklink Catalog,
the strength of the BL Community and its future...
Seems evolving is not seen as good and Management want to get BL stuck in time.
|
I wouldn't go that far. Some changes were approved, so things are moving.
I'm just disappointed as to how all these "changes" got put on the list,
then 24 hours before they go into effect, a bunch get denied.
I'm curious as to Stormchaser's view on this. Most of the edits to that
page were done by Stormchaser, but the last update was by Russell... so it seems
to me Russell is behind the sudden "not approved" items; was Stormchaser in agreement
though?
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
I, for one, would like to know how changes brought forward and discussed by the
community, and then reviewed and decided upon by our volunteer admin are somehow
not 'approved' by BrickLink. Is this really what happened?
If BrickLink is, in fact, taking such specific control of the catalog away from
the volunteers, then we need to know about it. BrickLink has only 1 contributor
and no sellers on its entire staff. I don't trust them at all.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
When Russell posted that very confusing message (to me as well as to the catmins
themselves) saying things may or may not get approved by April 1st, I realised
it'd be a mess... :/ The idea was that the 6 things directly listed in the
newsletter would certainly be approved, and the rest was going to be decided
sometime later on and may or may not make it in the April update.
If I recall right, for some reason Bricklink believes it is better to do little
bits at a time, so the other things will be approved later. Don't really
understand this logic, it just sounds like a recipe for confusion to me. IMO
it's way better to do major updates in one go...
Actually I wish the entire catalog revamp (this project started last year, will
last maybe another year) was just released in one update once it is properly
finished (and announced properly in advance). After so many years of working
with the catalog as it is, what is a few more months working with it? Just my
2 cents.
|
Maybe they are worried about the spaghetti code becoming so corrupted it would
bring down the site if they changed too much at once? Even when Daniel was alive
and made some changes it would break things and he wrote the original code.
Smaller changes means less to check and figure out if something goes wrong.
Yes it would be nice to have everything changed at once, but if it brought the
whole site down, well that might upset 1 or 2 people. Maybe 3 if it was the
right day.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:18 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
When Russell posted that very confusing message (to me as well as to the catmins
themselves) saying things may or may not get approved by April 1st, I realised
it'd be a mess... :/ The idea was that the 6 things directly listed in the
newsletter would certainly be approved, and the rest was going to be decided
sometime later on and may or may not make it in the April update.
If I recall right, for some reason Bricklink believes it is better to do little
bits at a time, so the other things will be approved later. Don't really
understand this logic, it just sounds like a recipe for confusion to me. IMO
it's way better to do major updates in one go...
Actually I wish the entire catalog revamp (this project started last year, will
last maybe another year) was just released in one update once it is properly
finished (and announced properly in advance). After so many years of working
with the catalog as it is, what is a few more months working with it? Just my
2 cents.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
Oh, seems all the work was for nothing, a big shame for the Bricklink Catalog,
the strength of the BL Community and its future...
Seems evolving is not seen as good and Management want to get BL stuck in time.
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Mar 30, 2021 10:38 | | Subject: | Why so few changes approved? | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Since it was only a couple days before April 1st, we decided to start organizing
the pieces by the new changes that were going to be done April 1st. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Now today, I notice that a ton of them say not approved, including many that
made sense. So is there a reason?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 22:58 | | Subject: | Re: Super Heroes | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| The Spider-Man sets were back in the early 2000s and were branded as LEGO Spider-Man
and LEGO Spider-Man 2 for the early Sony films. (Technically, some of them were
a subtheme of LEGO Studios, but the decision to include them in Spider-Man was
made a long time ago.)
The Batman I sets were back in the late 2000s and were branded as LEGO Batman.
Both of these themes were way before LEGO Super Heroes came along, so they have
a special place in the catalog hierarchy.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, skvely writes:
| | Forgive me if this has been asked before, but why do "Batman I" and "Spider-Man"
get their own top-level categories under Set, when all similar categories are
under "Super Heroes" (including another "Spider-Man", I assume another generation)?
"DC Super Hero Girls" is also a top-level category. I understand that more since
it uses the minidolls instead of minifigures, but I would still consider it Super
Heroes.
Also, it bothers me that "Super Heroes" isn't subdivided into "Marvel" and
"DC" (the categories "Buildable Figures", "Sculptures", "Mighty Micros", and
"Super Heroes Other" could also be at that level to avoid fracturing things too
much).
|
|
|
| Author: | skvely | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 22:37 | | Subject: | Super Heroes | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Forgive me if this has been asked before, but why do "Batman I" and "Spider-Man"
get their own top-level categories under Set, when all similar categories are
under "Super Heroes" (including another "Spider-Man", I assume another generation)?
"DC Super Hero Girls" is also a top-level category. I understand that more since
it uses the minidolls instead of minifigures, but I would still consider it Super
Heroes.
Also, it bothers me that "Super Heroes" isn't subdivided into "Marvel" and
"DC" (the categories "Buildable Figures", "Sculptures", "Mighty Micros", and
"Super Heroes Other" could also be at that level to avoid fracturing things too
much).
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Image requested for set 40443-1 sticker sheet | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| |
The person who submitted the pending inventory for this set did not take a photo
of the sticker sheet before using it. So I would appreciate if anyone who has
an unused sticker sheet can supply an image for it.
|
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 13:48 | | Subject: | Image requested for set 40443-1 sticker sheet | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
The person who submitted the pending inventory for this set did not take a photo
of the sticker sheet before using it. So I would appreciate if anyone who has
an unused sticker sheet can supply an image for it.
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: Our First Additional Note Link | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Today we added our first link to another website in an additional note:
Thought that was kinda cool and worth sharing.
|
I like it! There are lots of great websites in our community, and it's smart
to share the knowledge.
Jen
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 13:04 | | Subject: | Re: Our First Additional Note Link | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Today we added our first link to another website in an additional note:
Thought that was kinda cool and worth sharing.
|
It is!
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: Our First Additional Note Link | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please add the same note to
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Today we added our first link to another website in an additional note:
Thought that was kinda cool and worth sharing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 29, 2021 11:25 | | Subject: | Our First Additional Note Link | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Today we added our first link to another website in an additional note:
Thought that was kinda cool and worth sharing.
|
| Author: | Zab3uk75 | | Posted: | Mar 26, 2021 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: category changes | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Zab3uk75 writes:
| | Where will I find a list of category changes, past and up coming ?1st April
Thanks for your help.
June
|
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're seeking, but this page was
updated as recently as 16 days ago: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Thank you.
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Mar 26, 2021 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: category changes | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Zab3uk75 writes:
| | Where will I find a list of category changes, past and up coming ?1st April
Thanks for your help.
June
|
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're seeking, but this page was
updated as recently as 16 days ago: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
|
| Author: | Zab3uk75 | | Posted: | Mar 26, 2021 11:26 | | Subject: | category changes | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Where will I find a list of category changes, past and up coming ?1st April
Thanks for your help.
June
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| That works too
The beaty of undetermined types: solve all unsolved IDs
|
|
| Author: | Redhawk_Kevin | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure sw0737a | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| The problem is consistency. If Jek-14 and Ezra Bridger are both listed with 'a'
variants due to one having a helmet and the other having hair, then Poe should
also follow suit. This is why the change was requested.
If, as suggested by Graeme above, the letter suffix would only be applied to
variants found within the same set then both of those examples are also invalid.
The first instance of the minifigure assembly within the instructions is a good
standard that clearly allows for a definition of a new minifig variant.
At the same time we are now counting stickered bricks as a minifigure.. this
makes even less sense in my opinion.
Best,
Kevin
In Catalog, Thargor writes:
| | I just saw that Minifigure sw0737a Poe Dameron was added to the catalog. This
Minifigure is included in set 75149 and comes with helmet and hair piece.
In the past we often had Minifigures that had both helmet and hair piece but
they were only listed once in the catalog e.g. sw0416, sw0772, sw0407 ...
Why is Poe now listed twice as sw0737 with hair and as sw0737a with helmet?
|
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Simply said, we don't know any LBG 731 made with old "normal spring".
Also my eyes perceive old gray, so I needed you to state what colours are there.
I'm here to help, just give us more data of them
|
The left ones are LBG, the middle and right ones are LG.
I have decided to sell the LBGs as "soft" and the other ones as "undetermined".
Problem solved.
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | grimsbricksuk | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure sw0737a | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Also, these helmet/hair variants are just crazy....
sw0737 even comes with a helmet in the set, it’s just not shown wearing it on
the instructions.
The new entry should be labelled as without hair.
Same goes for the Jek-14 fig sw0475a, it’s the same fig as sw0475 just without
hair.
The rules need to be reviewed for figs that have either helmet or hair, or indeed
both.
In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | It’s my opinion that this new version of Poe should be sw1144, as it’s not a
variant of sw0737 (although they’re the same). A variant with ‘a’ on the end
suggests it could come from the same set, which this does not.
I tried submitting a change request to sw1144 but that was pending for the upcoming
Blue Milk Luke fig (my submission), which I have now changed to sw1146, making
sw1144 available again for randyf to amend his change request, should he wish.
I noticed the fig was originally added under sw1144 but was then changed, this
is wrong imo.
In Catalog, Thargor writes:
| | I just saw that Minifigure sw0737a Poe Dameron was added to the catalog. This
Minifigure is included in set 75149 and comes with helmet and hair piece.
In the past we often had Minifigures that had both helmet and hair piece but
they were only listed once in the catalog e.g. sw0416, sw0772, sw0407 ...
Why is Poe now listed twice as sw0737 with hair and as sw0737a with helmet?
|
|
|
|
| Author: | grimsbricksuk | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 06:50 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure sw0737a | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| It’s my opinion that this new version of Poe should be sw1144, as it’s not a
variant of sw0737 (although they’re the same). A variant with ‘a’ on the end
suggests it could come from the same set, which this does not.
I tried submitting a change request to sw1144 but that was pending for the upcoming
Blue Milk Luke fig (my submission), which I have now changed to sw1146, making
sw1144 available again for randyf to amend his change request, should he wish.
I noticed the fig was originally added under sw1144 but was then changed, this
is wrong imo.
In Catalog, Thargor writes:
| | I just saw that Minifigure sw0737a Poe Dameron was added to the catalog. This
Minifigure is included in set 75149 and comes with helmet and hair piece.
In the past we often had Minifigures that had both helmet and hair piece but
they were only listed once in the catalog e.g. sw0416, sw0772, sw0407 ...
Why is Poe now listed twice as sw0737 with hair and as sw0737a with helmet?
|
|
|
| Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 06:29 | | Subject: | Re: I can't see the character... | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Borat_Sagdiyev writes:
| | Hello! I would like to add this minifigure to my inventory, but I don't see
him on the Bricklink catalog. Please, help me! Thank you in advance!
Best wishes,
Dan
|
Looks like it is Hufflepuff Quidditch player Cedric Diggory:
https://www.brickfanatics.com/new-lego-harry-potter-book-includes-first-hufflepuff-quidditch-player/
Publishers release date is 1 June 2021, so probably won't be in the BL catalogue
until then.
ISBN-13: 9780794448080
Product No. LNC-6407
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2021 04:48 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Simply said, we don't know any LBG 731 made with old "normal spring".
Also my eyes perceive old gray, so I needed you to state what colours are there.
I'm here to help, just give us more data of them
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 18:55 | | Subject: | Re: FTBushH in all plastic? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I seem to remember that this part is part metal (bush) and part plastic (base).
This one, though, feels like it's all plastic. Is it the same part as the
metal ones?
/Jan
|
Seems that I do not remember correctly. I found a couple of old ones in my collection
that are clearly plastic as well.
/Jan
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | all LBG are soft.
all sets after 2003 are soft
all sets before 1997 are normal
they all seems normal to my eys
|
But they can't be all be normal because in the picture, the ones on the left
are LBG while the others are LG. And you say that LBG must be soft.
1 out of my 34 parts seems harder than the rest although it doesn't look
different from some of the soft feeling ones.
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: I can't see the character... | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Borat_Sagdiyev writes:
| | Hello! I would like to add this minifigure to my inventory, but I don't see
him on the Bricklink catalog. Please, help me! Thank you in advance!
Best wishes,
Dan
|
I don't see the fig either, but keep in mind it’s this HP quidditch torso
assembly when it is added
|
Which is a mannequin from the newest Diagon Alley set, 75978
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: I can't see the character... | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Borat_Sagdiyev writes:
| | Hello! I would like to add this minifigure to my inventory, but I don't see
him on the Bricklink catalog. Please, help me! Thank you in advance!
Best wishes,
Dan
|
I don't see the fig either, but keep in mind it’s this HP quidditch torso
assembly when it is added
|
| Author: | Borat_Sagdiyev | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 16:21 | | Subject: | I can't see the character... | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello! I would like to add this minifigure to my inventory, but I don't see
him on the Bricklink catalog. Please, help me! Thank you in advance!
Best wishes,
Dan
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| all LBG are soft.
all sets after 2003 are soft
all sets before 1997 are normal
they all seems normal to my eys
data:
soft = can sustain MORE than 600g
normal = can sustain LESS than 550g
yo, soft can hold more.
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | all LBG are normal.
all sets after 2003 are soft
|
These two statements seem to contradict each other because LBG is post-2003.
/Jan
|
error on my part
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | all LBG are normal.
all sets after 2003 are soft
|
These two statements seem to contradict each other because LBG is post-2003.
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I'm currently double checking these shock absorbers in my store and I'm
very much in doubt about some of them. I seem to have three different spring
sizes (see image), but BL requires them to be either "soft" or "normal". So
I guess the ones on the left are "soft" and the ones on the right are "normal",
but what about the ones in the middle? Juding by the number of winds visible
they seems to be somewhere in between.
Help is appreciated.
/Jan
|
I fear these springs are still a mess despite the fact that many have been sorted
out with inventory changes...see also
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1216038
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure sw0737a | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Thargor writes:
| | Why is Poe now listed twice as sw0737 with hair and as sw0737a with helmet?
|
Because of this mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 10:45 | | Subject: | Shock absorber spring type | | Viewed: | 100 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I'm currently double checking these shock absorbers in my store and I'm
very much in doubt about some of them. I seem to have three different spring
sizes (see image), but BL requires them to be either "soft" or "normal". So
I guess the ones on the left are "soft" and the ones on the right are "normal",
but what about the ones in the middle? Juding by the number of winds visible
they seems to be somewhere in between.
Help is appreciated.
/Jan
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2021 10:04 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure sw0737a | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Thargor writes:
| | I just saw that Minifigure sw0737a Poe Dameron was added to the catalog. This
Minifigure is included in set 75149 and comes with helmet and hair piece.
In the past we often had Minifigures that had both helmet and hair piece but
they were only listed once in the catalog e.g. sw0416, sw0772, sw0407 ...
Why is Poe now listed twice as sw0737 with hair and as sw0737a with helmet?
|
I have submitted a change request.
|
Figure originally was submitted and approved to the catalog under new unique
number then it was changed ehwn it was in the catalog
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?itemID=199822
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
