Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 19:06 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig sim002 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Lime to White} 16816pb01 Minifigure, Skirt Cloth Length 10mm with Lime Print Surrounding Apron Pattern
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
|
It does. However, this item relationship match is not capable of handling complex
relationships consisting of all the parts with which an individual part will
fit and work together. It is another limitation of the system over which I have
no control.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | Would this pack count as a set? For sale at a retail store. Or, if not, would
the figs count as a catalog entry?
|
I don't see any figs in that package.
As for whether it would count as a set, you say they were all prepackaged? Were
the contents of all of them identical?
If so, then I really can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be considered
a set.
How many were for sale at that location? Was there an item number for the set?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 04:04 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I have checked the instructions of set 8667 and have come with a very solid complete
assembly with two parts.
|
Yes, you're right. For some reason I thought those were:
and I was adding in the red plate below.
| | Would this then be accepted?
|
If you look at the existing sticker over assembly parts, then you can see that
the parts for each assembly are all in the same colors (at least I believe they
are). I haven't thought about multicolored parts and how that would work.
I don't guess it wouldn't really matter all that much, but let me ponder
it for a bit. I'll get back with you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | So I tried adding a new relationship for P=3937 and P=6134 and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
|
Well, there's a problem with this new relationship type. It works great
if you only have two items, but it doesn't work well if there are multiple
items (unless they all only work with each other). So for now just send in items
which only work with each other and perhaps we can figure something out for other
things later.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Out of all the changes, only multipacks are really new.
|
No, that's not true, either. This multipack has been in the catalog since
March, 2007:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I like this new relation type very much
|
OMG, I knew you would!! I was telling everyone, "Even if no one else likes this,
at least I know David will. In fact, I think he'll like it very much."
| | but I wonder if the title will convey the intended meaning.
|
I also brought up this concern in the intensive, three-week long meeting we had
when discussing this new relationship type. You're right . . . don't
most parts fit together? Unfortunately, the meeting ended before any of us could
manufacture a more appropriate title for this relationship.
| | Would Parts that Belong Together work better?
|
I think it would. I think it so strongly that I just changed everything to this
title. If anyone asks you, though, you must tell them that I alone came up with
the title. I will deny your involvement to my dying day.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
Yes, I like it. Thanks! So, my original version:
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
Your revision:
Shows parts that were designed to naturally work with each other and are nearly
always used together as a single unit.
My revision of your revision (just cut two words and changed another word to
account for that):
Shows parts designed to naturally work with each other which are nearly always
used together as a single unit.
I've updated the guidelines with that last version.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | So would this mean that an item . . . can not be added in the catalog?
|
No. It just means that the assembly must include enough parts to be solid and
not be held together merely by the sticker. Look at this example:
[P=BA47pb02]
The sticker is only on the tiles. The complete assembly includes the underlying
4 x 12 plates to make the whole thing solid. Any assembly, of course, must match
what the set instructions show for that assembly.
For the part under discussion, it looks like the complete assembly would need
to include three other parts to be approved as a catalog entry (see the instructions
for set 8667).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I was sorting through a lot of Lego and came across an assembled item (with a
sticker holding it together).
|
| | Could you give me more info about this item and the reason it is marked for deletion?
|
I've added an additional note to this item explaining why it was marked for
deletion:
[P=BA43pb02]
Feel free to submit a new catalog entry for a similar assembly which is held
together by more than just the sticker.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2018 02:27 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? UPDATE | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Is there actually a 3626bpx28?.
|
No, there is not.
Thank you for researching this and bringing it to my attention and to axaday
for contacting sellers and to JulieK and baylit for responding with here with
evidence from their store inventories.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 19:18 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | so much for that attempt at humor
|
Sorry, didn't realize it was an attempt at humor. I've been getting
some occasionally unfriendly feedback of late and thus I've tended to assume
things are criticism unless stated otherwise.
It's funny . . . people complain about bitter, unresponsive administrators
and never think to question how that happens.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 18:06 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Oh, well. We can all ignore it and then someone else bring up the question again
in six months.
|
This is not ignoring it:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1120803
I will paraphrase what I said in that message:
If it's wrong, then let's fix it. But first, let's make sure it's
wrong by asking some sellers who claim to have the no-stubble head and figure
for sale.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Catalog lists all the "Bandit 1" as having head without stubble. However, every
instance I can find of this head in various sources all display the stubble.
|
I don't consider the original source for the inventory of the figure to have
been reliable at all. I'm sure we carried these parts over from other websites
and I have no problem with updating things.
I believe in this case we'd need to mark the current figure for deletion
and add a new one. Then the inventories of six sets would need to be updated.
We should probably have a better understanding of the heads and figures on the
market right now, though, and where they came from. What has worked well in
the past is contacting sellers and asking them about their items for sale. Would
you be willing to do this?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Sorry to keep posting. I should've figured out everything I wanted to say
first. I also should have invested in Tesla stock (about 3,200 shares would
have done it) back in 2010. I didn't have $50K to invest then, though.
Still don't, as a matter of fact.
Anyway, Marek and Randy could better respond to this post since they're in
charge of inventories. I'm just responding because they haven't yet.
In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | Extra parts in sets can vary during production, and will sometimes vary from region
to region. These extra parts do not represent a complete set, nor are those pieces
required to complete a set.
|
The site is well aware of that and we do not consider extras necessary to have
a complete set. Please read how we define regular and extra parts by our policy
(which was changed, as I said, quite some time ago - I just checked and the primary
changes were made eight months ago in mid-April):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Extra parts are still considered extra parts. We all know what they are and
there is still an Extra Items section in BrickLink inventories where they go.
I don't see that ever changing.
As for parts on sprues, they've been inventories for a long time.
Not much change there other than sweeping up the remaining parts. As for parts
which came preassembled, the site has been going that way for a long time, too.
We're just doing it more quickly now. Out of all the changes, only multipacks
are really new.
What the site really needs is an inventory which can reflect two states of existence:
new and used. I asked for that when I was an inventories administrator and Randy
is still pushing for it. This requires a functional update to the site, but
it would solve this problem permanently. Once the solution was in place you
could choose to see/buy/sell the set in the state it existed when new or the
state it exists in once used.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:24 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | I've seen a post in the eurobricks forum which a states that the extra parts
section here on bricklink is changing. Please do not make this change.
|
That policy change was made something around a year ago. I'm clueless as
to why it's just being mentioned now.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 19, 2018 04:20 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set lille-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0363 Yellow Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Bushy Eyebrows and Goatee / Worried Pattern - Hollow Stud (Alternate) (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
Per expired additional note for figure cas502 which comes in this set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 20:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 182-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, mvdheide writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3009pb213 Yellow Brick 1 x 6 with Crossed Knife and Fork Pattern (Sticker) - Set 182 (Counterpart)
|
Marek and Randy,
When you check the instructions for this set you will see that the sticker covers
multiple parts. However, if you look at the sticker sheet for the set and photos
of actual sets with the stickers applied, then you can see that the sticker is
only large enough for the brick it is on.
At least that was what I found, so I approved this catalog entry. If there's
a problem with it, then please let me know.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | But the sticker sheets were clearly not intended to be included as extra parts
and don't appear often enough to justify including them as extra parts.
|
There are two schools of thought on this and good arguments can definitely be
made for both positions. You have presented one side well and I will present
the other side:
1. Frequency of appearance is not currently the deciding factor in the
inclusion of an extra part in a set inventory. Should it be? I don't believe
so. How could you reasonably set a quantity of appearances before an extra is
allowed into an inventory?
2. I've never heard a convincing explanation of why any extra parts
are included in any sets, although I've certainly heard a number of theories.
Extra sticker sheets certainly don't appear to be consistent extras, but
should intentionality on the part of TLG be the deciding factor on including
extras in an inventory? I don't believe so, or at least not until we can
conclusively define (based on convincing evidence) the circumstances regarding
extra parts and their appearance in sets.
3. It is possible that extra sticker sheet extras are more common than
any of us realize, even if only packing errors. If we're not keeping any
records of their appearance in sets, then how would we truly know?
4. Extra sticker sheets fit the definition of extra parts as well as
any other extra part does. They appear in some sets and not in others. Should
we base decisions on extra parts on anything other than the fact that they came
in a set and were extra? I don't believe so.
But, perhaps Marek and Randy can produce some guidelines for us on how extra
sticker sheets should be handled in set inventories considering the positions
we've outlined.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2018 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | It's not unheard of to get a duplicate sticker sheet in a set here or there.
It has happened to me two or three times.
|
We may have differing opinions on this - not sure because we've never discussed
it. My opinion is that a sticker is a part. We consider it a part and TLG considers
it a part and includes it in the part count.
If you have an extra one of these parts, then I believe it fits the definition
of an extra part and should be included in the set inventory as such:
Were sticker sheets systematically included as extras in some sets in the way
that other parts are? We really don't know, since we haven't been keeping
data on extra appearances. The current inventory guidelines don't address
how frequently an extra must appear in order to be added to the inventory, but
the unwritten rule has been one time.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8272-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | One of the last things that were written were "Further,
there is some debate over whether PLG and flat silver are officially different
colors or merely variations in what TLG intended to be the same color." So I
chose to stop the discussion there rather than wasting everybody's time.
|
We do intend to address the issue of the differences between these colors when
we launch the project on colors. It is possible that pearl light gray and flat
silver will be combined into a single color, but we can discuss it further at
that time.
Until then, I see (and saw) little point in changing PLG parts to flat silver
parts and vice versa. If we combine the colors, then it's just a waste of
time to do inventory changing now from either color to the other.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6280-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear p96pirate (Not Applicable) Pirates Poster 1996 (4.103.789/4.103.790-EU)
Comments from Submitter:
Per additional note for poster.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:32 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7075-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244911 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Redbeard Poster (Double-Sided)
Comments from Submitter:
Additional note says that poster came in this set.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7074-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244910 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Kragg Poster
Comments from Submitter:
Freestyle posters are included in set inventories, so I see no reason why this poster should not also be included in the inventory of the set in which it came.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve LEGO Movie 2 30620 Polybag | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rapar writes:
| | Can you please approve The Lego Movie 2: 30620 Star-Stuck Emmet Polybag? I have
some in my hands. This polybag can already be purchased in Poland.
|
For you I will, but only just this once. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2018 16:36 | | Subject: | Re: Stickered Parts separate category | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, brickphils writes:
| | Pls create separate category for stickered parts so that we dont have to go through
them when we are browsing items only with decorated/printed ones.
|
I definitely want the catalog to give members the ability to easily distinguish
between plain parts, stickered designs, printed designs, and molded designs.
We should be able to easily see what we want to see in search results without
having to go to another website or filter within search results.
However, I don't think more categories are the solution here. I believe
this needs some programming to happen, so I have moved your request to the Suggestions
topic. Suggestions are largely not read or acted upon, but don't worry -
I will continue to advocate that we have this functionality for the catalog in
the future.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2018 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60147-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Sticker should be on 1x6 white tile (part 6636)
|
It was easily fixed. Now it's a 1 x 6 tile.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2018 00:54 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3039pb119 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Dark Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1118942
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Quiver out of inventoryname. | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, tonnic writes:
| | I was putting some minifigs into my inventory when I saw the following minifig
that is mentioned to have a quiver but in fact is without quiver. See the inventory!
|
Thank you for mentioning this. It has been corrected.
If you need to correct an item name in the future, then please use this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 8, 2018 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) - Set 8129 (Counterpart)
|
I know it has already been done, but I think a new catalog entry should probably
be added here. The buttons on one slope are red and the buttons on the other
slope are dark red. Also, the patterns don't precisely match.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 69transamman writes:
| | I just have to say that no matter what the subject is, I always read thru your
post completely in search of the humor you often interject!
|
Aww, thanks! That made my day.
Nope. You may not believe this, but I have never even tasted alcohol and have
never experimented with drugs. I don't use caffeine. I smoke cigarettes
and that's it.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with drug or alcohol use, but I have
always preferred to be in control of my own mind. I do, however, think that life
is something of an absurdity and a joke and I intend to laugh at it whilst I
am able in whatever ways I find.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set
|
Note that the later version of the set included 13 sealed bags instead of the
12 bags from the first version. An attached photo from an auction site shows
the contents of the later set, although the green large bricks are not visible
in the photo.
Also, the date printed on the activity/instructions cards is 1994, but the date
printed on the cover/inventory card is 1993. The actual date of re-release is
unknown. I went with 1994, but it could have been earlier.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
I wanted to include some additional information about this set for future reference
and an inventory change is the best way to do that.
First, I personally and carefully checked every single brick in this set from
sealed contents for which I opened every bag and handled the parts (photos of
my set attached). Mine was the early version of the set released in 1991 and
there were 12 bags in the set. All of the bricks included cross supports except
a single 2 x 3 brick in yellow (the other 11 of the same brick had cross supports).
This is a late appearance for this brick (two years late according to BrickLink's
current timeline) and I was surprised to find it, but there it was.
As for inside supports, those little ridges inside the brick which are only currently
distinguished for one brick (the Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports in case
the title or part number changes in the future):
All bricks in the set, including those with designs, had these ridges with the
exceptions listed below. I mention this because it will be useful data if we
decide to distinguish these parts in the future (I compared the parts listed
below (except the last two, for which I had no comparison parts) to recent examples
and all of the newer bricks I checked had inside supports).
The aforementioned 2 x 3 brick in yellow without cross supports.
All 2 x 6 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 8 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 10 bricks in the set.
All 4 x 12 bricks in the set.
All 8 x 16 bricks in the set.
The empty window frames had hollow studs as I indicated in the inventory. The
bricks with eyes had no white included as indicated in the inventory.
Finally, and I really don't think we'd ever distinguish this difference,
exactly half of the doors and windows were attached to the left and half to the
right. So two doors attached facing left and four windows attached facing left
and the same number of each facing right. TLG did not distinguish this difference
and I see no need for us to. The door and window directions are easily reversible.
The complete contents of the set are the storage case with no lid, 12 bags of
parts and four green large bricks loose, the cover/inventory cardboard with nothing
printed on the other side, four double-sided activity/instructions cards, and
the informational sheet of paper. All of these are included in an outer original
box with the set number printed thereupon. I have the activity cards from the
1994 version and verified that each of these was different than the 1991 version
in spite of having the same 6-digit identification number printed on each card
for both versions.
I'm certain this last bit has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion,
but I mention it for the sake of completeness: my second cousin's first name
is Frank.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 12 Part 3002old Yellow Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 12 Part Yellow 3002 Brick 2 x 3 {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Another message follows.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 14:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c01 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Female (bfp001) (match ID 1)
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c02 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Male (bfp002) (match ID 1)
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px9 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Simple Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part Black 4744px14 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Woman Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px3 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Freckles and Ears Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part White 4744px16 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Baby Face Pacifier Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set to avoid an unnecessarily complicated inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 21:21 | | Subject: | Re: Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions
|
I'll do:
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
This only leaves the 4th and 5th sections which still need to be worked on.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 17:38 | | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
I need to make it clear that these are not official guidelines. I have been
working on a project to rework the catalog Help Center and the page linked to
above is a proposed page which is not yet complete or official.
The current catalog guidelines still in effect are only those on the left
side of this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
The sections on the right side of the page are proposals and are works in progress.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 03:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6387-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| What's the difference between these two items?
[P=4210c04]
[P=4210c02]
You've submitted the first one to the catalog, but isn't it the same
as the second one which is already in the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 22:40 | | Subject: | Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 250 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I am embarking on an ambitious project to create written definitions of every
single category in the BrickLink catalog. This has never been done before, although
Dan made a start here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
I realize now that it was never done because it's a massive amount of work.
Even coding the page is taking me a while, but I have the first eight letters
in the alphabet done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions and, since you'll
be the ones most affected by category definitions, who better to ask? 
Please read very carefully:
1. Descriptions should be short, but complete. I'm not looking for a legal
definition, but also don't want something vague and ambiguous - the point
of these definitions is so that we can easily and completely see what fits into
a category. Creating short, accurate, complete descriptions may tax your writing
ability, but I believe it is possible for every category. Focusing on accurate
descriptions rather than listing exclusions would be best.
2. Yes, my list is not structured like Dan's. His focuses on readability
while mine focuses more on functionality. This page, to my mind, exists to serve
a purpose, like a dictionary, and not to entertain or greatly inform. My page
is more of a reference we can all use as necessary and the alphabetical order
should make it easy to quickly locate information. So I've given this structure
some thought and I'm not too interested in restructuring the page.
3. Limit descriptions to one or two reasonably short sentences. My goal
is to get everything onto one line without breaks between categories. You can
see that the Years category at the top approaches the limit in length. If we
absolutely can't accomplish this for some categories, then we're stuck
with exceptions - but let's shoot for this goal.
4. Please do not post every five minutes with new definitions. Pick the section
below you're going to work on and create all the definitions for that
section. Then post back here with your complete list. I recommend doing this
in MS Word or some other word processing software to avoid losing data. You
may claim any of these sections already unclaimed:
1st Section: A, B, C, D, E
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
3rd Section: K, L, M, N, O
4th Section: P, Q, R, S, T
5th Section: U, V, W, X, Y
Ignore the letter Z - I'll get that out of the generosity of my heart.
5. Some of these definitions will require research. For parts, look over the
categories carefully and try to completely understand why they're structured
like they are before defining them. For sets, do enough research to present
a quality definition. Some categories are repetitious, so try to include slightly
differing information for each one (years, for example). An example of repetitious
categories are the Dimensions Wave 1-9. I'm defining every category except
for years for the sake of consistency.
6. Completely ignore decorated categories. There are 33, I think, and I will
create definitions for them.
7. We will have discussion about these categories later. First we need to get
definitions in place and then, later, we can all discuss together if the definitions
need improvements. So there should, in theory, only be 10 replies to this post:
five category claims and five category section definitions.
8. I will edit your definitions as I see necessary. Save your definitions somewhere
(shouldn't be a problem if you're writing them in word processing software)
and we can discuss later if you think I've butchered any of them beyond your
liking.
Okay, that's all I can think of. This will be work, but I can't imagine
doing this all on my own. So assistance is deeply appreciated and I wish I could
do more for you than just appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Minifigures for this set were almost completely assembled in the sealed sets;
leg assemblies were the only thing separate from the combined hat/head/torso.
Therefore, if you only add in *two* parts for each minifigure in the set (of
which there are five), that brings the part total to 587.
|
The figures were assembled with headgear for display purposes, but I doubt it
would have changed how many parts TLG considered them to be for purposes of an
official part count. I don't know for sure, though - just mentioning it
as something for consideration.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mfav writes:
| | The instructions are a horror show. Can you update those?
|
Yes. Few people would ever read through all those 2,700 words before submitting
an item to the catalog, nor should they have to.
That's not to say it isn't necessary to have rules, because it is. But
that particular page desperately needs to be simplified to the salient points
along with clear, simple guidelines for completing the form. The minutiae can
be moved elsewhere.
The entire Catalog Help Center needs a makeover. There are too many topics and
some of them have not been updated in forever. I was going to work on other
things today, but I've been putting this off for too long.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't see the point of the "pattern" in the title anyway.
If everything in a decorated category has pattern in the title, it becomes useless
for searching if you restrict searches to that category.
|
Something is necessary in the title because not everyone goes to categories first.
Sometimes people just want to find all the 2 x 2 bricks with a pattern. That's
the whole point of having a search feature and the search feature is only as
good as item titles.
Ideally, as you pointed out, we would be able to tag things for the purpose of
searching and we could have more reasonable item titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| | I actually have submitted things only to have it rejected.
|
I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience in the past. We're
working on our communication and I make a serious effort to send an explanatory
message to every single contributor when I am unable to approve submissions.
| | I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly . . . I just find the form to be convoluted as heck.
|
One of the jobs of a catalog administrator is to check submissions and correct
them to catalog standards before approving them. It is true that if you make
a perfect submission it makes my job much easier and it will be approved quicker,
but don't let fear of errors dissuade you from submitting. You don't
have to get things perfect.
I know the submission form is difficult to understand, but I do not have the
ability to change it. I can tell you from experience that the more submissions
you make the easier it gets and the more comfortable you become with the form.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
And that, my friends, is the tragedy which can befall you when you attempt to
be clever whilst also being tired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | The word 'Pattern', used in parts titles, is just a comfortable placeholder
in reading the part titles. Pick out ten random parts and read them with the
word 'Pattern' and then read them without the word 'Pattern'
and they mean the same thing.
|
No, this word serves a very important purpose. You can search for "pattern"
and "-pattern" to modify your search results as desired. It's not just verbal
eye candy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | Are there any Printed/Stickered parts?
|
Yep. Just came across one, in fact.
Printed nose:
Printed nose and stickered part (no space in the title for "Pattern," apparently):
* | | 18907pb02 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Top Curved 6 x 10 x 4 with 5 Window Panes with Shuttle Nose Pattern and Space Logo on White Background on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 60080
Parts: Aircraft, Decorated |
| | I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed parts (at least dual-molded arms)
|
Yep. Here's one:
| | but not sure about the other combinations.
|
But that's the point of such a system. It would be designed for the future
as well as the past.
| | There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent. I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category name.
|
Meh. Perhaps we'll consider it in the future. I sense a lack of enthusiasm.
I changed the new category to Decorated and finished moving all the Aircraft
parts.
I actually like the eight definitions I came up with thanks to this discussion.
We need to be able to distinguish between printed, stickered, and molded designs
and people have asked for that ability. I don't think those identifiers
would ever go into part titles, but they could go into tags and result in a simplification
of overly complicated existing part titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
|
Yes, they look like LEGO products and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't
be accepted.
I changed your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The Catalog Requests topic
is only to ask that something in the catalog be changed which can't be changed
through existing forms.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
