BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Inventories Requests, logistiker writes:

It is certain that it had a two-clip saddle as an alternate.

We'd need to see more evidence of this than a forum discussion elsewhere.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 18, 2021 02:59

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 42108-1

Viewed:

20 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests

In Inventories Requests, Roxyncz writes:

now I planned to add this list with my parts.

Member gunga has been helpfully assisting with cleaning up some of the parts
people have submitted to the catalog and never added to inventories.

But I've removed the pending change requests for this set to give you the
opportunity to submit them yourself.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 17, 2021 23:04

Subject:

Re: Category in part titles

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:

I understand bricklink is currently working on written guidelines for catalogue naming

Well, actually we're not doing that at the moment. It's just something
we will do in the future.

is this something they wish to remove from titles or add to the categories that don't have
it?

We don't know yet.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 17, 2021 00:08

Subject:

Re: Set 40449 Approval

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mjwest83 writes:

When will set 40449 be approved for listing?

Sorry, we missed this one. Here it is now:

40449-1 (Inv) Easter Bunny’s Carrot House
232 Parts, 2021
Sets: Holiday & Event: Easter

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 14:26

Subject:

Re: Constraction categorisation needs fixes

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

Suggestions

In Suggestions, Swamp_Kryakwa writes:

Constraction series parts (Bionicle, HF, SW buildable figures, Slizer, Chima
buildable figures, Ben 10) has really messy categorisation.

Um. Yeah, about that . . .

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:53

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?! - Question

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, tpr writes:

You have change logs in the catalogue now, won't this change be part of that.

Yes, of course. All changes will be logged here:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewYear=&viewMonth=&viewGeDate=&q=&viewStatus=1&itemType=P&viewAction=P

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:50

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?! - Question

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, tpr writes:

In the catalogue of each item - when changed, will there be a log/change note
to say where it was moved from?

We have this:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487

We may also temporarily put remarks in the titles of items - not sure about that.
I know someone else asked for it.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:48

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?!

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

I can't help but feel like we're
soon gonna have the catagories we want to have and these large projects aren't
necessary anymore, but maybe I'm wrong...

Well, that's absolutely the goal. This time around we created photographic
definitions for all the shape-based categories (brick, plate, tile, wedge, slope,
ring, ball, cone & dome, cylinder, etc.). Many of the movements will be done
for those parts, but some will remain undone (brick categories, slopes, and wedges).

Getting shape-based stuff sorted out was huge, so that's a lot of
progress. They're also probably the most impactful categories, so we're
getting them (mostly) out of the way first.

I know people want the large figure parts / Technic / Bionicle categories looked
at, so we'll have to get into those at some point. And theme-based categories
need to be looked at (Friends, in particular).

And another thing to keep in mind is that we want to have submenus for the Parts
category tree at some point. When that happens we'll probably create additional
categories to separate things further within the submenus (minifigure body parts,
for example, can be split up into multiple smaller categories once we can move
those into submenus).

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:36

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?!

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

I have asked you several times, please, make sure this time we're done.

You have, yes. And I'm sorry that we couldn't fix everything in one
attempt. I agree it would've been the best approach.

Unfortunately, it also (potentially) would've involved too many changes at
one time. We have to balance many considerations and this approach seemed to
work the best considering all factors.

I just expected 2 things:

- there would a month minimum headsup of the movement date (thought that was
agreed)

Right, and that was the month of March as announced here:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1256122

- we would be good for at least a year.

I don't recall ever promising that. Even moving at six-month intervals I
don't know how long it will take to sort things out with over 65,000 parts
in the catalog. But it will probably be ongoing for a while.

I have been able to run my shop in peace for 15 years and now I'm really not sure
anymore keeping a store here is going to be worth the hassle.

I don't want to be insensitive to your needs, but have you considered what
others are suggesting: don't base your storage system entirely off the BrickLink
catalog? It genuinely isn't the best approach.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:23

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?!

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

Even for tiny stores, this is a clear indication as to why storage should never
be based on the (current) catalogue.

This is a good point.

The end result of these changes will be a more sensible and less-changing catalog.
We've implemented written category descriptions in 2020 where none existed
previously. The result of no written category definitions was confusion and
debate.

Plates vs. tiles was a particularly long-running source of debate, which the
April 1st changes (based on clear definitions) settles.

But basing a sorting system on BrickLink only works if the catalog remains forever
the same. An unchanging catalog is fine if it's perfect, but 20 years of
undefined categories did not leave us with a catalog of perfection. Rather,
we have work to do.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:08

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?!

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

you suggested this

Maybe I should have stated that more plainly. You have repeatedly been one of
the drivers of category changes for parts. At least two of the changes you personally
suggested were implemented in the catalog and required moving hundreds of parts
between categories.

To hear you complain about part category changes now is . . . somewhat perplexing.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2021 05:01

Subject:

Re: Two Weeks?!

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Definitely won't be able to take my entire 1.2 million parts
store apart and piece it back together

It sounds like you'd prefer to lock the catalog down into a forever-unchanging
database.

But then, maybe not . . . because you suggested this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1190801

And this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1160384

And this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1155030

And this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1152945

And this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1116185

And then there's this:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1165412

Heartbricker: I know some users had a valid issue with the changes as
it relates to storage as they were storing pieces by category and changes to
the category names created an issue.

You: That happened to me, but in the end it wasn't a big deal, I could
switch around a few things quite easily.

Another message from that thread:

You: Running a 1 million part store in a small house, I'm a living
stereotype

So you had only 200K fewer parts when you said moving things around was fairly
easy within your store stock.

Your wide-eyed shock at the April 1st changes isn't entirely warranted.
You're a frequent forum reader and participator, meaning you've known
about the proposed changes for some time.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2021 20:18

Subject:

Re: Scala Assistance Needed

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, pikachu3 writes:

Yes, both of them work perfectly well with System parts.

Thanks, Ryan! We owe you one.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2021 20:01

Subject:

Scala Assistance Needed

Viewed:

79 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

We have pending requests to change the titles of these two parts to remove the
word "Scala:"

6942 Dish 5 x 5
Parts: Dish

6934a Tile 3 x 6
Parts: Tile

Problem is, Scala has its own connection system and we don't know if these
parts are only compatible with those connections. Will the tile and dish attach
to building system parts?

If anyone has these parts and can assist us in making this decision we'd
appreciate it.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 12, 2021 12:27

Subject:

Re: Colour Abbreviations for Catalog Navigation?

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

Suggestions

In Suggestions, macebobo writes:

I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

I don't think it was sarcasm as much as a realistic look at what figure titles
could look like if color abbreviations were adopted within them.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 10, 2021 17:04

Subject:

Re: 5372 - Skeleton Chariot

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Squirrelbnct writes:

Has somebody any idea why it is not possible to put Set 5372 on a wanted list
or inventory?

That is explained here:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=212

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 10, 2021 10:29

Subject:

Re: 21763c01

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, CanadaFirst writes:

First thing, the parts do not appear in a search for the item numbers

You gots to do a search like this:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=21763*&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W

Should we list and/or create plastic parts as not applicable or as their color?

It doesn't matter right now because the colors of plastic parts are a mess
that needs to be cleaned up. It's number 22 on the map:

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

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 9, 2021 04:11

Subject:

Re: Three versions of the 9797 set

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

Catalog Requests

In Catalog Requests, xoshimin writes:

Lego released 3 versions of the set in 2006, 2009, and 2012.

This request has been open since May of last year. I apologize that it wasn't
addressed until now.

I marked this request as Already Exists because you're welcome to
submit new versions of the set to the catalog if you'd like:

https://www.bricklink.com/wantedCatalog.asp

Or, if you feel that the existing inventory can sustain the comparisons of all
three versions (our preferred solution), you can submit inventory change requests
here:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChange.asp

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 7, 2021 10:47

Subject:

Re: Leg and torso dimensions

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Catalog, atkk writes:

Why are there no dimensions for torsos and leg assemblies in the catalog?
I think this is messing up instant checkout options, since without dimensions,
lettermail probably does not appear in shipping choices.

Packaging dimensions are stored in a separate, hidden field and are completely
separate from catalog dimensions. Catalog dimensions (or the lack thereof) have
no effect at all on the Instant Checkout feature.

If you wish to add or change packaging dimensions, please post in the Packaging
Dimensions topic here in the discussion forum.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 7, 2021 08:55

Subject:

Re: Changing the release date of an item

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:

It's listed to have been released in 2014

BrickLink's part timelines are based on appearances in sets. So we have
a timeline for a part (2014-2019 in the case of this part) based on the years
of release for the sets it has appeared in.

We can't manually change that timeline (nor would we want to) because of
the way the system is structured.

I've got one with the 2012 date.

The copyright date molded into a part isn't necessarily indicative of the
date it was actually released. This part may well have been manufactured in
2012, but not actually released to the public until 2014 (probably late 2013).

(Also, please check out my other catalogue suggestion?)

We have read it. We only have 7 open catalog requests, including yours:

https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=&qS=Y&qM=Y&msgID=&uName=&ID=24&status=0&v=c&max=50

Your request involves significant re-categorizations in multiple categories,
so it likely won't occur in the near future. Frustrating, I know, but we
have 20+ years of confusion to work through. We're already planning to move
nearly 1,000 parts next month:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 6, 2021 11:45

Subject:

Re: Pneumatic Hoses- same size, different part #

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Heartbricker writes:

There are other hoses with the same issue:
Is this a catalog issue or are we missing something?

Problems with hoses are a known issue that we will address in the future. It's
item number six on the catalog roadmap:

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

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 4, 2021 14:43

Subject:

Re: Please clarify similar torsos

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Kenopolis writes:

I am not exactly sure that's what I was looking for...
There was no place to explain why.

You said, "Could you please make a "this item is similar to" note to them?"

This is the language used for item relationships, which are an automated way
of matching two similar items by requesting the match with our form. Are you
wanting something different done, and, if so, what?

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 4, 2021 10:08

Subject:

Re: TRUKAYAK

Viewed:

20 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Stellar writes:

I meant as a new relationship like "Build event", each set would have only one
ID in the relationship, so all the other would not display in each entry, but
seeing the relationship would show all the Build event sets.

Ah, I gotcha. An interesting idea, treating item relationships like a tag system.
I guess I started that by adding unsplit variants and redesigned sets as item
relationships. Not sure how far we should go with it . . .

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 4, 2021 09:53

Subject:

Re: TRUKAYAK

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Stellar writes:

What about a relationship to link all in-store builds, like the unsplit variants
one?

Categories are more appropriate to group similar sets. Categories are in a bit
of a mess right now, but we'll fix this eventually.

If we used item relationships for something like this you'd see hundreds
of sets every time you clicked on one of the in-store builds.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 4, 2021 09:49

Subject:

Re: When does Scala become Scala

Viewed:

31 times

Topic: