Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 22:27 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Guidelines: Minifig Heads | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I would like to suggest the following catalog guidelines for minifig head
|
Is it too much to ask that we keep this all in one thread where I can easily
reference it? I don't mind reposting everyone's replies to the original
thread and I can go on doing it as long as need be, but it is taking time away
from approving new catalog entries which I was working on.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 20:23 | | Subject: | New Part Category | | Viewed: | 135 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Today I added a new category: Wheel, Accessory.
I moved 31 parts from Wheel to the new category.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 06:36 | | Subject: | Re: Part 35442 and 35449 name - flower or gear? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | If you look at how these parts are used, then they are actually gear wheels.
Should the name not be "Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Gear Tooth"?
|
Sure, why not. It was an easy fix. Some people in the future might not realize
they're gears and think they're flower petals, so now the titles include
both terms.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:22 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
Everything else is good.
Just to be clear, the fact that figures were incorrectly added to the catalog
was no one's fault other than my own. My job is to check things and I did
not check these things.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:06 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | More bad news. I just checked Lego's website for instructions and it appears
that Genji (dual-sword holder?) and Hanzo (quiver) are missing these neckgear
in their pictures here.
Also, Genji appears to have a piece that connects to his helmet.
|
Now I'm beginning to be embarrassed by my incompetence. I've fixed them:
I've also contacted anyone who has the four affected figures for sale and
alerted them of the issue. Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | The picture for this fig is wrong.
|
I'm confused. The figure doesn't have a picture.
Only kidding. I removed the images just now. How and why did these images get
approved?
Well, the catalog (me) is trying to be more responsive than it has in the past.
That means more and better communication with members, quicker item approvals,
and no more long queues of pending items. One of the casualties of pumping out
catalog entries is that some get in which are wrong.
I have to put some trust in members that items are submitted properly, especially
for new figures for which the assembly instructions are not always immediately
available. Sometimes that trust is repaid and sometimes it ain't. I have
a decent memory and submissions from the member who submitted these entries will
be checked carefully in the future.
It's a messier method in some ways, but I believe the benefits to members
outweigh making sure a catalog entry is absolutely perfect in every way before
approval. That's what change requests are for. This is not to say that
I don't check and occasionally reject things, of course. I'm just not
going to hold catalog entries forever, especially not desirable new items which
can easily be corrected. The inventory administrators, as Randy said, also sometimes
catch errors during the inventory process.
Having said all that, it was my fault that I approved these images/figures when
they were incorrect and I apologize for the error. I believe the instructions
were already available when I approved those figures with those images and I
neglected to download and check the set instructions regarding the correct assembly.
As you've noticed, the images are gone now.
| | This one is up to the admins. The 1st assembly shown in instructions is the
standard w/ legs. I think this version is a good addition to the catalog, but
it may not fit the catalog policies.
|
There's kinda only one CA for now, and it's me. If the figure does not
match the assembly first shown in the set instructions, then it's off to
deleteland for that figure, which is where this figure has travelled.
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
And I seem to remember a certain person telling me that it didn't matter
if parts appeared in the N/A color. 
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yoavheskia writes:
| | i counted only 51 known colors, not 52 as mentioned in catalog statisics.
|
That is odd. I cannot explain it. I thought the statistics were real-time data.
Even if not, I don't see any recent changes which could have caused this
discrepancy.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Just thinking
it's smarter to fix the problem now before another gazillion images get posted
and end up in the wrong slot and then need to be "fixed".
|
Agreed and thank you for bringing it up. It could be human error since I approved
some of the images you mention. I'm sure Russell will shed some light on
the issue.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | you are credited with the large image.
|
| | and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
|
Oops. Other way around. Confusing, as I said, even to me.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.
|
Russell would indeed be the person to answer this, but in many cases it comes
down to the way the system is designed. On this, for example:
The legacy image is from hazelsden. The color image is from you. The color
image is shown as the primary image, which is why you are credited with the large
image. The legacy image also exists, which is why it is shown as an additional
image and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.
| | And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
Those I cannot explain.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 21:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| An anonymous person would like the following information added for review:
The additional note for
[s=yoda-1]
is too bloated since most of that information is included in the help page for
the "Cannot be Inventoried" flag. I suggest simplifying it to just "This set
is a glued model." or getting rid of the note entirely and adding "(Glued Model)"
to the set name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional note for
is unnecessary since the set name includes "polybag" and the set relationships
includes the other set. I suggest removing the note entirely.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: 2 versions of dino tail end #40379 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | There are two versions of this part where the small hole by the base varies
in location, mirrored left or right side.
|
If you'll post a comparison picture, then I'll add an additional note
to the part mentioning the difference and also add this part to our list of known
variants.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | So open mouth is ... mad face?
Weird ... ok then.
|
I did not title this figure. The person who titled the figure was a person who
had the figure in hand to see what the face actually looks like. Titles can
easily be changed and if you feel that the current title does not accurately
describe the figure, then please request a title change using this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | Not sure what needs to happen but ... that minifig should be changed.
|
These are pending and have been for some time:
[M=sw986]
[M=sw987]
[M=sw988]
What needs to happen is that someone needs to upload pictures so the figures
can be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9397-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 32523pb12 White Technic, Liftarm 1 x 3 Thick with 'UW 9397' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb012 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing Center (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb011 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing End (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Hello, friends. My name is Robert (which is a pseudonym) and I approved these catalog entries as a catalog administrator. Before I approved them I verified their existence with the set instructions.
"But, Robert," I hear you saying, "How the heckfire can we know that you didn't make an error? We've noticed that you're prone to them, you know."
Oh, so that's how it is? You want to be that way? Fine, then, go and look for yourselves. You can find the white liftarm being stickered and added on page 32 of the set instructions (the 1st of three instructions books).
The black liftarms are part of the crane assembly and they are added in the third book on page 41. Now I'm off to do something different, but don't think I won't be watching like a hawk to make sure these change requests are approved or whatever.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: 93273pb089 deletion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, phyllisw8 writes:
| | I just added a more complete and correct entry of this part as 93273pb090. 93273pb089
is currently pending approval and should either be deleted or my submitted information
from 93273pb090 be transferred to the entry.
|
I've changed your post to the Catalog topic since the Catalog Requests topic
is for me to change something in the catalog. This pending part is not yet in
the catalog.
As for correcting it, you're definitely right - it does need plenty of correcting
before it can be approved. I will get to it eventually. 
Since the other member submitted the catalog entry first, I'll probably approve
that submission after correction and remove your pending submission.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2018 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: Parts not showing on set inventory pages? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Help, normivey writes:
| | Parts that are identified as being part of a set from the parts page did not show up
in the set's inventory page.
|
Those parts appear in the inventories of figures. You can click the Break Minifigs
button at the top of an inventory page to have all the figure parts appear along
with the other items in the inventory if desired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2018 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve 30529-1 (In Hand) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand and would like to see it approved soon.
|
We have no image for this item and it will not be approved without an image.
Please upload an image.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 05:11 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
This is not a new policy, by the way. It has been around for a long time:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1022961
For the sets you mention, some will be available on the LEGO shop website tomorrow
and I'll get them approved either very late today or very early tomorrow.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | According to the newsletter of a Dutch webshop the following new sets are now
available. Please approve them.
|
Many or all of those sets have been available for a while in varying locales.
Nevertheless, we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 21:16 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | All packs were pre-made and identical with the same accessories. There was a
square display at the register filled with many of them; I did not get a count,
but lots!
And they were packaged in the same packaging used for the build-a-fig bar, so
there was no unique set number.
|
Submit the set it as a catalog entry, please. I see no problem with approving
it and its figures as catalog entries. Make up a set number and I'll modify
as necessary. Include any further notes you can in the comments section about
the availability dates, if it was available at any other locations, if it was
advertised in any way, the cost and/or circumstances for purchasing (free with
purchase?), etc.
|
|
| 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.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
