Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2021 13:55 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6042-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mjwest83 writes:
| | When will set 40449 be approved for listing?
|
Sorry, we missed this one. Here it is now:
|
| 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 05:50 | | Subject: | Re: Two Weeks?! - Question | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
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 15, 2021 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Scala Assistance Needed | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| We have pending requests to change the titles of these two parts to remove the
word "Scala:"
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: | Catalog | |
| 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 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | Catalog | |
| 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: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Does anyone know when a scala piece goes in the scala category
|
The process used for categorizing parts is explained in detail on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 4, 2021 09:44 | | Subject: | Re: sh693 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | Why not have the inventory of the figure include both heads?
|
Because the inventory system doesn't support alternates for figure inventories.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2021 20:16 | | Subject: | Re: sh693 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:
| | according to instructions this minifigure was assembled wrong. It need to be
build with trans clear head instead of light nougat one.
[sh693]
|
From Set 76175.
Hmmm, that's a tough one. The box front advertises Peter Parker (see attached
image). We could include the mannequin as the standard figure in the inventory,
but I think people will want the Peter Parker figure as advertised - so maybe
include s693 as an inventory alternate?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2021 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: Please clarify similar torsos | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Kenopolis writes:
| | Could you please make a "this item is similar to" note to them?
|
This is accomplished by requesting an item relationship addition with this convenient
and all-natural form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelAdd.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2021 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: TRUKAYAK | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | Even it was a TRU exclusive, there is no TRU branding on the instructions or
on the bag, it meets the Co-branding rules?
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1046
Co-branded items are items that have another brand name, logo, or trade dress
on the box, in the set contents, or in the set name.
Cheating? Maybe a little, but Toys "R" Us is in BrickLink's set name.
There are additional guidelines on that page that would tend to prohibit this
type of co-branding, but they've been loosely followed going way back:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2021 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: TRUKAYAK | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Predatedcow writes:
| | Hey, I’m trying to list the 2015 Toys r Us TRUKAYAK kayak and I can’t find it
in the catalogue.
|
Just added this for you.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | All in my imagination of course, but this is just my perpetual frustration
speaking up.
|
I'm happy to report that things have improved. CAs/IAs have a much better
working relationship with the site than existed in the past and at least some
hope of making progress on long-needed catalog/inventory improvements.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, DeLuca writes:
| | Is "Figure" the best keyword?
|
No idea. We use "Minifigure" 8,567 times and "Figure" 1,843 times. There's
no standardization of the terms.
I suppose we could change them all to "Figure/Minifigure" to catch both types
of searches. That's only 10,410 catalog changes.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In which case 'Slope, Minifigure' would be better?
|
First you must consider how best to accomplish your goal. You want to tag all
the Slope 45 2 x 2 parts that are used as the bottom halves of figures with a
unique identifier to make them easier to locate.
Is the word "Minifigure" the most appropriate term to use here? It is already
used for 8,567 items in the catalog. I doubt anyone would use that word when
searching for these particular slopes, but I suppose they might?
The word "Legs" is used 5,679 times. Oddly, in combination ("Minifigure Legs")
we only find 42 uses. Regardless, it might be worth considering the best search
terms to use for your endeavor.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | My request would simply be to put the word 'Minifigure' in front of the
word Slope
|
This change would cause items in this list to sort improperly by title:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=33
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 09:48 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Does that mean I have to submit a separate request for each and every Sloped
Legs?
|
Yes, it does mean that.
| | or can I just submit one part as an example of how they all need to be changed?
|
Start with one request to show us what you have in mind. We'll contact you
if it can't be approved. If it is approved, you're cleared to request
updates to the rest of the items you'd like to change.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 09:24 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | So, wait.. does that mean submenus are a planned feature to happen eventually?
|
We have not been told that submenus for parts will happen. We have merely requested
them.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2021 09:22 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | would it be possible to add the word 'Minifigure' within the description
|
If you'd like to see titles of individual items changed, you may request
those with this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2021 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two - UPDATE | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| END OF DISCUSSION
Okay, so the end of the discussion has arrived. I'll turn this list over
to management to review during March:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
There could be subtractions from the list during the next month, but there will
be no additions.
SHAPE-BASED DEFINITIONS
The good news is that there was progress on further defining shape-based categories:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
Shape-based categories now have images that more clearly define the category
(a great idea from jennnifer). Those images should mostly be good, but I still
need to update a couple of them to address unanticipated categorization issues.
THANK YOU!
Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion. You raised some issues
I hadn't considered. I know these changes are frustrating to some of you,
but with written definitions we hope to have a much more solid catalog moving
into the future. Thank all of you for your patience with us.
Of course, when the site gives us submenus for parts we'll be able to more
sharply separate items to make them easier to find.
UNADDRESSED ISSUES
There were still numerous unaddressed issues from both this discussion and the
one we had six months ago. For example, we'll be creating a Slope, Wedge
category, but won't be populating it yet.
To better address the abundance of category issues raised, I think instead of
doing things exactly the same way in October we'll just continuously work
on the next group between now and then. A month wasn't enough time for people
with full-time jobs elsewhere to address everything mentioned and compile the
list.
We have 915 items potentially moving this time (up from 540 items last October),
but we still didn't make it to these suggestions from the February, 2021
discussion:
randyf
Friends category
Stellar
Technic category
Watch parts to parts
speech bubbles
combining door and window frames
sports cleanup
Connection name standardization – can be accomplished with title changes for
right now
(but we did get your Bracket definition update completed)
infinibrix
body wear – not until we have parts submenus
decorated slopes used as legs - these should remain decorated slopes
firestar246
elbow bricks to Technic, Connector
hair vs. hair combo – need submenus first
The_RealRedHex
Animal body parts vs. animals – not this time, but needs to be addressed
Ber_i
Fabuland parts - not sure on these
Bar parts – lot of contention here, so no changes yet
WhiteVanMan
Friends accessories - similar to randyf's suggestion
yorbrick
Parts Duplo Minifigure Modified head - need submenus
figure movements/changes - would need to be part of a much larger project
par016
numerous suggestions from last time – still didn’t get to most of ‘em
leopard37
utensil and weapon categories – need submenus
DeLuca
cake frosting
Plate, Round 1 x 1 with Binoculars (Robot / Droid Head)
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2021 02:57 | | Subject: | Re: Duplo Mushroom | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | A while ago my change was rejected.
|
It must have been over a month ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?nID=&viewDate=Y&viewType=E&viewStatus=2&itemType=P&viewAction=N
During that month we've had over 1,200 change requests:
https://www.bricklink.com/calendar.asp?m=0&v=Q
so I have no idea why your requests were not approved. We usually PM the reason
to the submitter when we can't approve a change request.
| | Anyone got an idea of why it was rejected
|
Catalog administrators would typically be more able to answer this question than
the general membership of BrickLink. It would be appropriate to PM us with questions
such as these. In this case, of course, we don't know the answer because
of the length of time that passed between when the requests were not approved
and when you asked the question.
| | or should I request it again.
|
We're usually willing to reconsider requests and you're welcome to resubmit
if you feel the requests were handled erroneously.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2021 09:39 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | What does base and thickness mean here?
|
You bring up good points. There hasn't been a clear line drawn in the past
between what is a Brick, Modified vs. Plate, Modified. That line could be drawn
as follows:
1. Everything not as tall as a full brick is a modified plate.
2. Everything taller than one plate is a modified brick.
3. Everything between brick and plate goes in a separate in-between category.
The in-between items aren't actually bricks or plates. I went with
number 2 when writing category definitions rather than trying to create entirely
new categories for these items, but the same basic arguments could be made for
going with number 1 instead.
I'll attempt to modify the definitions (including possibly going with number
1 instead) to make a little more sense out of the whole thing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2021 09:22 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | 1. For parts defined as Plate, Modified with at least one side of the base is
fully or partially tapered.
|
| | With this proposal what I mean to accomplish is to have all wedged plates together,
as the wedge is a very visual difference and also the category Plate, Wedge is
much smaller than the Plate, Modified.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This is a similar problem to the slope categories,
where the base is used to define the differences between Slope/Slope, Curved
and Slope, Wedge. I still have not quite figured this out yet, including what
it means for this part:
It's a curved slope, but the base is not square or rectangular. Therefore,
according to the current definitions it doesn't fit into any slope category.
As for wedge plates, if we allow attachments and bases taller than a single plate
in height it leads to more items being considered Plate, Wedge because of a general
wedge shape. That includes these modified plates, among others:
The current category definitions restrict the Wedge, Plate category to a strict
definition and leave the Plate, Modified category open to more bizarre and hard-to-categorize
parts. I felt this was the most appropriate approach for future category use
as well as making sense of things, staying with BrickLink tradition, and minimizing
disruption.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2021 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: Wheel? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | The same is true for another train wheel holder and assembly:
|
I think it would be helpful at some point to group parts designed for wheel attachments
together in one place. Perhaps Wheel, Holder or something of that sort.
They're all over the place right now (at least the following eight categories):
* | | bb0037 Train Brick 2 x 4 x 1 1/3 Sliding Block with Wheels Holder
Parts: Train |
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2021 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Wheel? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Was searching my train department upside down for this part...
[38339]
But I see it is in "Wheel"... is this a mistake? Since, well, it clearly is not
a wheel
|
Wheels and wheel assemblies are something of a mess, especially for titles.
We've been meaning to get them cleaned up, but . . .
Number 25 on this roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2021 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: 40450 Amelia Earhart - add to catalog?? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, platinum_lego writes:
| | I was just wondering what the deal is with adding a new set to the catalog.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=71
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2021 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Adjusting Colour Names such as Bluish Grey? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | Either way what is it about ‘old’ in the colour names that Bricklink doesn’t
like?
|
Old is an undefined word, as is new. Old as relative to what? We've run
into problems in the past using old/new as descriptors and are definitely moving
away from using those two words. They are ultimately meaningless.
For example, if TLG deliberately changes the colors of grays again, we're
stuck renaming everything again. And to what? Old LBG, New LBG, and Even Newer
LBG?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2021 03:31 | | Subject: | Re: Some sad news | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | A huge thank you from me for all that you, Hygrotus, have done and posted over
the years, you will certainly be missed regarding your contributions.
|
Marek really brought a lot of value to BrickLink. I enjoyed working with him
and am going to miss that. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| | I propose sub categories to thin out the main categories.
|
This is a good idea and we'd like to move toward it. The problem is that
the main categories list already numbers in the hundreds. We'd prefer to
have submenus before we do a bunch of additional splitting.
Please see this message for more information:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168807
If you'd like to vote on it, see this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1169569
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:18 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We apologize for this error on our part. The deletion was due to circumstances
beyond our control.
|
Those are contradictory statements, but hopefully you get the general drift.
We didn't intentionally remove your pending submission, but we regret that
it happened nonetheless.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
We apologize for this error on our part. The deletion was due to circumstances
beyond our control. We typically try to notify submitters when a submission
cannot be approved.
You're welcome to resubmit this item with the image.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
