BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, mockingbird writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Ball - Part x12 does not fit definition (suggestion is to move to Belville
or Scala - additional suggestion is to move other balls to Ball)

Response: Theme-based categories are somewhat problematic, especially
when there is System overlap (Friends, Belville, Scala, etc.). I think here
the category definition should be modified. Agree on moving balls to the Ball
category. This is a relatively new category (October, 2018) and that was always
the intent.

Could part

x12 Brick, Round 1 x 1 with Ball (Finial)
Parts: Brick, Round

be a modified plate round with ball?

I find that hard to believe it’s a plate.

Sooner a Brick,Round, if this really should be a Brick,Round:

15395 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Bottom
Parts: Brick, Round

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 18:46

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]
Good point, while I like "Technic" as a whole roughly the way it is, I feel like
some renovations are in order. "Link" is a tiny subcategory that is rarely used,
while the main Technic vanilla category (a leftover bin) contains more than 10
times the number of parts and is used all the time. I think it would be good
to redistribute some parts within Technic (or, in the case of SylvainLS'
suggestion, out of Technic.. but generally mostly within Technic), so that the
subcategories are more comparable in relevance.

Agreed.

So,

2852 Technic Engine Connecting Rod
Parts: Technic

isn’t that a Technic Link?

4185 Technic Wedge Belt Wheel (Pulley)
Parts: Wheel

a wheel, and

Hmmm, I'd not call it a wheel. Well, it is a wheel in the general sense,
in the way gears are also wheels (and a wheel of cheese is a wheel

) but I
feel a pulley or a belt transmission wheel, which may be used as an alternative
to gears, is something different from the category of wheels that are basically
vehicle wheels (which this part usually is not). It makes sense to me to include
it with the Technic categories, as it is almost always used in Technic sets and
when brainstorm-browsing how to put together a technic mechanism, IMO it's
nice to have it right there in the Technic family without having to digress to
wheel to find it.

2743 Technic Slope 4 x 1 x 1 2/3
Parts: Technic

2744 Technic Slope 6 x 1 x 1 2/3
Parts: Technic

2823 Technic Forklift Fork
Parts: Technic

modified Technic Bricks?

Yep that would be nice.

I've been thinking about a category "Technic, Transmission" for this family
of parts, to add a bit of structure by taking parts out of the vanilla category...

Not agreed. First, “Transmission” is a function. Then, I don’t think it’s easy
to know which parts can function in a Transmission or as Transmitters.
If we are taking Transmission as in Car Gearbox, why aren’t gears in there, or
differentials?

Hmm I was thinking about the gear-switching kind of transmission and not what
differentials do, I'm not really good with the terminology. Maybe there's
a word for it. The parts that I listed are really a coherent group that are used
together for the specific purpose of switching transmission in a vehicle gearbox
or for a lever that switches between functions of a model. They are rarely used
for other purposes and I think their relation deserves to be reflected in the
catalog. Plus it is an opportunity to reduce the Technic leftover category. But
you have a point about the gears... clutch gears are an essential part of this
system and have a close relationship to the driving rings and I can see those
in the category as well. But then that would of course mean taking gears out
of the gear category..... tough call.

I'm not an avid Technic builder or anything, I just have a large stock of
Technic parts and these are ideas that come to mind when I see how things are
structured. Maybe actual Technic builders could chime in to share their view?

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 17:03

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

After the first day of discussion here are the issues identified, sometimes paraphrased,
and my responses:[…]

Cool.

Roof - category is unneeded

Response: Agree.[…]

Super.

In the same vein,
“Technic, Link - For items that make rigid joints in linkages and continuous
track systems that are used primarily in Technic sets.”
mixes 6 (+2 variants) link-bars and 4 treads / chain-links with 2 attachments.

I fear the only link (pun intended) between these two groups is that they use
the word “link,” and not all of them do at that!

I think it would make more sense to either
a. put the treads (and attachments) in Tire & Tread, where other treads already
are (though one-piece treads),
b. make a new “Tread” category with all the treads and their attachments (and
rename Tire & Tread to Tire).

I’d be partial to (a).

Then, that would leave the Technic, Link category with only 6(8) parts….

Good point, while I like "Technic" as a whole roughly the way it is, I feel like
some renovations are in order. "Link" is a tiny subcategory that is rarely used,
while the main Technic vanilla category (a leftover bin) contains more than 10
times the number of parts and is used all the time. I think it would be good
to redistribute some parts within Technic (or, in the case of SylvainLS'
suggestion, out of Technic.. but generally mostly within Technic), so that the
subcategories are more comparable in relevance.

I've been thinking about a category "Technic, Transmission" for this family
of parts, to add a bit of structure by taking parts out of the vanilla category...

6539 Technic Driving Ring 2L with 4 Teeth
Parts: Technic

18947 Technic Driving Ring 3L
Parts: Technic

6641 Technic Changeover Catch
Parts: Technic

35188 Technic Changeover Rotary Catch
Parts: Technic

32187 Technic Driving Ring Extension
Parts: Technic

35186 Technic Driving Ring Extension with 8 Teeth Inside and Outside
Parts: Technic

6549 Technic Stick Shift
Parts: Technic

6543 Technic Stick Shift Plate
Parts: Technic

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

18948 Technic, Driving Ring Connector
Parts: Technic, Connector

I know, I've said I don't like small categories.. it's just an idea.
This seems like a meaningful family of parts to me that will be often referenced,
so I'd make an exception there. Or maybe combine it with all the pistons/engines/crankshafts
out of the vanilla category and call it Engine & Transmission. Just some food
for thought

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 15:05

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

After the first day of discussion here are the issues identified, sometimes paraphrased,
and my responses:

Antenna Issue: There are currently flags in this category

Response: The 3957* parts with stickers should stay. Part 30322 should
go to Flag and 30322* parts to Flag, Decorated. This would only leave seven
parts in the category. I'm wondering if it would be worth moving those parts
as well and eliminating the Antenna category altogether.

Ball - Part x12 does not fit definition (suggestion is to move to Belville
or Scala - additional suggestion is to move other balls to Ball)

Response: Theme-based categories are somewhat problematic, especially
when there is System overlap (Friends, Belville, Scala, etc.). I think here
the category definition should be modified. Agree on moving balls to the Ball
category. This is a relatively new category (October, 2018) and that was always
the intent.

Baseplates - overlap between categories, including raised and road plates
in multiple categories (suggested solution is to simplify into decorated and
undecorated categories as is done for other parts)

Response: Change could affect 234 total parts. Agree that it would be
simpler and more consistent with how other categories are handled. Perfectly
willing to do it now, but it may need to be added as a roadmap project instead.

Bracket - category poorly defined (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)

Response: Like Antenna, here I would support eliminating the category
altogether. There are only 24 parts within and all of them would probably fit
better in other categories.

Brick, Arch and Brick, Modified and Cylinder and Panel and Slope, Curved –
major issues here which require a larger discussion

Response: Let's have that discussion.

Brick, Round - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite
definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Cloth - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Cone - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite definition
and move some parts)

Response: Agree. Will get the definition rewritten. However, don't
really agree on moving parts. Everything in the category now is roughly cone-shaped.

Duplo - multiple suggestions made

Response: Will look into getting these done, but would probably work better
as a separate project for the catalog roadmap.

Flag - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Foam - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Food & Drink - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite
definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Friends - issues with category definition and items included

Response: Agree. Think this would function better as a separate catalog
roadmap project, but definition can be rewritten and potentially the category
can be renamed.

Roof - category is unneeded

Response: Agree. There are only 13 parts in the Roof category. Five
of them are decorated, so really only eight parts. Will take a closer look to
determine the feasibility of eliminating this category.

Slope - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite definition
and move some parts)

Response: Agree on definition. Will get this done. The Hinge category
has problems of its own, but agree on moving 4857 and 44571 there. Also tentatively
agree on moving 13269 and 2876 to Wedge.

Slope, Inverted - poorly written definition (suggested solution is to rewrite
definition)

Response: Agree. Will get this done.

Technic, Brick, Wedge, and Wedge, Plate - poorly written definitions (suggested
solution is to rewrite definitions and move some parts)

Response: Agree there are problems. There's a lot going on here.
Will look into it some more.

Wing and Tail - move all to Aircraft

Response: Agree. There are only 35 parts in the two combined categories
and they are nearly all aircraft parts. BUT, we have the Tail, Decorated category
containing 327 parts. These would all need to be moved to Aircraft, Decorated
and that's a lot of movement. Not sure on this many changes.

Merge "Tap" into "Minifig,Utensil", "Tail" into "Aircaft", and "Turntable"
into "Hinge". Or, a more simple and conservative example can be merging "String"
(and the other String category) and "Hook" into "String & Hook". Or "Crane" and
"Support" into "Support & Crane", for example.

Response: Probably all good suggestions. Will look into them further.

Retitle 4081 parts because they do not have clips

Response: Definitely agree. Will look into this further.

Give parts with clips their own category

Response: Probably no to this. You can search for "clip" and find them
- although the same argument can be made for parts with a hinge. Regardless,
the Hinge category has been problematic and a Clip category would have the same
problems.

The cloth and foam parts are problematic. Can you state what the catalogue
preference is please: Does a part get categorised by its function first or what
it is made of first?

Response: This is a tough one. I would say we should be categorizing
first by what a part is made of. For example, there are cloth flags and wings.
They are categorized as cloth, not flags or wings. Consistent application of
this approach would mean moving other parts to Cloth (figure capes, for example).
If we're going to have Cloth, Felt, Foam, Paper, etc. categories, then we
should use them consistently. I'll work on defining these unwritten rules
on the categories page as you suggest.

Figures. Are you looking to move figures as well, where they meet the definition?

Response: Everything is open for discussion. If it looks too big to tackle
right now, at least we can identify issues and add to the catalog roadmap. I
think in the case of figures we could move some of them.

So then it becomes a figure and the accessory parts moves to minifig accessories
and cones?

Response: That seems reasonable to me.

Does all three of the qualifiers (name, face, sentient behaviour) have to
be equally met in deciding if Hamm is an animal,land with accessories or is the
qualifier more weighted to having name for instance? Having clearer guidelines
might make it easier and avoid long discussions on single parts or single figures.

Response: The primary qualifier is sentient behavior. It's a difficult
thing to qualify, but carries more weight than a face or name (or both). If
you have suggestions for improving the guidelines, please share them.

Thanks for the update. Oh! And I don't know how the administration is kept
so I will just add this one suggestion of mine again:

A category "Minifig, Lower Body" or "Minifig, Legs, Modified" or something
along those lines, to contain all lower bodies which are not regular legs assemblies,
such as robes, centaur bodies, ghost trails, mermaid tails.. I'm not sure
what to do with the short movable legs assembly.. I will leave the details to
others. But IMO it's best to have all non-standard legs, including those,
in one category.. since like 90% of minifigs have standard legs and the legs
assembly category already contains quite a lot.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 07:09

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]
It was just a warning for what it's worth, that's all. I'm just talking
about balance. If that is superfluous and you already had a balanced approach
in mind, then just ignore my point. And if I am the only one here who suffers
from that perfectionist urge once I think about things too deeply, well, then
I'm glad

I think you’ve made that point times enough.

Take my example: I, for one, have refrained several times in this thread from
saying this project is taking the whole problem (yes, yes, I know, there’s no
problem

) by the wrong end, that we should have found and defined attributes
first to… er… oops?

Well sure, your comment is now on the record as well as mine

There's no
need to convince everyone of the one thing or the other. The intention of the
topic was to collect people's ideas and opinions so we better share them

I was just posting it in a "better safe than sorry" mood as I use this catalog
every day and it's important to me.

Anyway I don't think our ideas are in conflict. I totally agree it's
a good idea to improve definitions as a starting point, so as to sharpen the
borders of the categories, and then go over all parts and see whether they still
fall within the borders. That is the smartest and healthiest approach I think.

Just wanted to make sure that people won't be taking it in the direction
of "Tiles sometimes have studs, plates are sometimes missing some studs, jumpers
exist with groove and without groove.... so if you think about it, what really
are 'plates' and 'tiles' anyway? The distinction doesn't
exist, it's all a blur, so let's abolish these constructs and introduce
a category called 'flats' and make categories like 'flats with clip',
'flats with bars'.. etc" That could be a great solution if logic and
consistency is the only goal, but ignores the fact the word "plates" and "tiles"
are at the heart of AFOL jargon anywhere both online and offline. Better to sharpen
the definitions of "plates" and "tiles" where we can, move a couple of parts
as a result, and accept the small amount of imperfection that remains.

I don't think anyone was planning to go all that far, so yes, strawman and
everything, I know

But the catalog is so important for my daily work, so I
really want this warning on the record (again

) even if it's totally redundant.
There have been ideas going around of abolishing the entire concept of putting
parts in categories, so it's not a completely irrational fear

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 18:51

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]
I don't expect that it will be like this, but just to be clear - if, on the
other hand, we're all gonna sit down in our arm chairs, have some beers,
and be like "dude..... what really is a "Tile", anyway?"

then we're losing
the ground under our feet and everything starts floating around.

Well, if no one ever get around a firepit under the stars with marshmallows and
ask “what’s a ‘Tile’?” then how do we know what’s a tile?
Hint, if your answer starts with “everybody knows,” then it’s the wrong answer.

You live in a culture that have had a writting system for millenia and dictionaries
for centuries. Even if you don’t refer to a dictionary every day, you’re taking
for granted that words have a (somewhat) fixed and common definition.

That’s not the case here. We are using a jargon and so we should define it.

Even in domains where people should know (yes, as in “everybody knows” but they
got the education that should have taught them), you can’t imagine how many times
one could say “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means.”

Ok, that's a bit of a different point. My point with the analogy was that
we are not computers perfectly comfortable with small doses of inconsistency
in life. As for language: Many of the compound words we learn make a lot of logical
sense when you pick them apart, but our brains aren't even exploiting that
fact, 9 times out of 10 we just have the entire compounded word in our memories
as one idiosyncratic blob and the brain is really quite happy with it that way.
Not making a case here that nothing needs to be changed, just that we don't
need to put all our efforts in trying pour a 100% perfectly smooth and level
concrete floor for a rally car to drive on

If entire common
categories are going to be replaced by entirely new ones, the cost is huge, and
it is likely that the result will satisfy the esthetics and logic of some, but
not of everyone - meaning the gain is also small. Such changes get a "no" from
me.

That's an extreme, […]

Oh yes, that’s an extreme: you go from “define Tile” to “replace and erase the
word Tile.” That’s a big jump.

Well... I think you understood what I meant, the implication of the scenario
I was outlining was that we'd be staring into definitions so deeply that
everything stops making sense and then this urge comes in to reimagine everything
from the ground up. At least, that's how it goes when I go that route, getting
all perfectionistic. I'm saying: keep some perspective, ie. try to make things
more logical while at the same time be willing to accept small inconsistencies
as they are always going to be there and they are not a problem if we don't
make them a problem. It's not a maths puzzle that has to be turned upside
down to reach that 1 perfectly correct outcome - there are no correct outcomes,
only outcomes that suit the purpose just fine.

It was just a warning for what it's worth, that's all. I'm just talking
about balance. If that is superfluous and you already had a balanced approach
in mind, then just ignore my point. And if I am the only one here who suffers
from that perfectionist urge once I think about things too deeply, well, then
I'm glad

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 15:28

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.

But this is the plan:

1. I'm opening discussion right now, in this thread, on changes in
item type and and category for any items wrongly categorized. I expect discussion
will probably focus on parts and last around two weeks.

2. I'll post all changes deemed worth making on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487

3. The catalog team will discuss internally during the month of September.
This will give everyone time to prepare for item movements. I'll post public
updates/reminders occasionally during August and September.

4. The actual changes will be made on October 1st, 2020. A record of
the changes will be retained for reference purposes for two years on the page
linked to above.

I know some of you are excited about this. It's the first time BrickLink
has been widely open to correcting some longstanding categorization issues.
I'm excited, too. I will fully read and carefully consider every post made
in this thread. To help me out, please:

1. Snip replies (remove extraneous content before replying).
2. Stay on point (don't post digressions).
3. Keep everything in this one thread.
4. Don't expect miracles. Some ideas may have to be added to the
roadmap as separate projects.
5. Try to limit complaints. Or, if you believe everything is already
properly categorized and don't like change, complain loudly and often. Site
management will be watching.

Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting.

I've posted my view before, but I'll add it again for the record. Take
it as nothing more or less than the preference of 1 user who uses the Bricklink
catalog extensively every day. Long post I guess but I'm just spilling all
the beans I have at once, for clarity's sake

Just a reminder that whatever we do, moves do have a cost. Besides the reorganisations
needed in the storage of stores, there's also the mutual intelligibility
with other websites to consider. (Yes I know plenty of users can come up with
plenty of cases where catalogs are totally different, but I know from experience
that generally the categorization on for example BO (but also other sites) really
is very similar, the exceptions being manageable from memory.) The catalog has
become a common good of the AFOL community and it's somethign to cherish.
Looking at my personal situation: It would be rather difficult to sell on more
than one platform if the catalogs are very different. I've got 1 million
parts organised alphabetically, and if the similarity is less than some 80% it
would be hard to make it work for either one platform or the other. I would create
a software interface for myself in order to be able to maintain the old categorisation,
so I will survive. But that's still a tricky and error-sensitive endeavor.
And it may be a more significant issue for other category-based sorters.

That's not to say changes can't be made. I just want to advocate that
the effect of the changes should be in proportion to the cost.

To make it concrete: I saw something about curved parts inconsistency. If all
curved Bricks would be moved into Brick,Modified or Brick,Round or Brick,Arch,
that is a fairly large but doable change. It takes some reorganisation and remembering
how that compares to other sites, and it's OK if the effect is that there
previously were real (not just imagined) cases of people being confused and not
being able to find things and it is solved by the change.
Such a change would get a "yes" vote from me.

I don't expect that it will be like this, but just to be clear - if, on the
other hand, we're all gonna sit down in our arm chairs, have some beers,
and be like "dude..... what really is a "Tile", anyway?"

then we're losing
the ground under our feet and everything starts floating around. If entire common
categories are going to be replaced by entirely new ones, the cost is huge, and
it is likely that the result will satisfy the esthetics and logic of some, but
not of everyone - meaning the gain is also small. Such changes get a "no" from
me.

That's an extreme, but I hope you get what I mean. As long as changes are
made responsibly, always keeping in mind there is a cost to every change, then
I'm good. I won't have any personal preferences for any changes, I'll
accept whatever way it goes.

Secondly, I'd like to point out humans are smart and our brains are specially
designed for easily picking up things like languages that are totally unlogical
if you think about them and full of exceptions. That is not to say no changes
are needed. Just that not every single change that satisfies a philosophical
esthetic is also really necessary or helpful in the real world. In the end it
comes down to whether or not people can find and browse what they need with ease.

In short: keep the cost in mind, and keep in mind the purpose of the catalog
is practical ease of use and not a philosophical exercise for its own sake. As
long as we're good there, I'm ready for the ride

P.S.:
A third, smaller concern I have is the browse-ability of categories. Tiny categories
like "Tap", "Tail" and "Turntable" are not comfortable to use as they make the
list of categories longer without providing much content to browse. E.g. personally
I would merge "Tap" into "Minifig,Utensil", "Tail" into "Aircaft", and "Turntable"
into "Hinge". Or, a more simple and conservative example can be merging "String"
(and the other String category) and "Hook" into "String & Hook". Or "Crane" and
"Support" into "Support & Crane", for example.
Doing something about small categories can clean up the catalog significantly
(meaning less time needed for users to scan the list of categories) without affecting
too many parts and without really tearing up categories. A good example where
this cost-gain ratio is pretty good.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 31, 2020 06:49

Subject:

Re: Avoid orders from buyers with 0 fedback

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, fobya71 writes:

I think that everybody knows that in the last two years there was a lot of peaople
connecting with BL the first time.

I'm sure that most of them to nopt read the rules...

It is becaming quite common to receive orders from people with zero feedback
that after some days ask for order cancellation.

I think it would be great to have a function to avoid orders from people with
0feedback or at least having the possibility to approve or deny the order before
it became a registered order. It is quite frustrating to cancel orders after
some days and then restock everythink...

Voted against. I will not solve anything, it will simply move the problem from
sellers who are using that setting to sellers who are not using it. Also, it
is a setting that would cause Bricklink to stop working for new members if everyone
would use it. I think a site should never have settings that would cause it to
stop working if everyone used it.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience but maybe it was just a spell of bad
luck, as usually my (0) buyers are great.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 27, 2020 13:07

Subject:

Re: when did plates with clips get name changed

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

Is sorting by category not good enough? I'm doing OK with sorting by category
and within Pate,Modified arranging things by dimensions. I don't really need
the item name, so I wonder if you really do?

In Catalog, jedvii writes:

thanks for the info. I appreciate the special page listing all the changes.

I'm hoping that when you rename things you will take in to account sorting
alphabetically by part name. For example, It's plate, modified and not modified
plate so that your regular plates are with your modified plates instead of "modified
plate" where your modified plates would be with your "modified bricks".

It's not necessary as much with things that have their own categories, but
Modified plates that have clips are kind of their own category. For example
you've went with the nomenclature of Plate, Modified with OPEN O clip with
Horizontal Grip instead of Plate Modified with clip (open O) with Horizontal
Grip.

I am not trying to get things changed again, I just hoping that in the future
some of this is considered before making large scale changes as it clearly wasn't
considered with this change.

I won't even get in to why bricks and plate are 1x4 (smaller number first)
but slopes and wedges are 4x1 (larger number first).

thanks for all your hard work. I'm sure it's not easy when people gripe
at every turn.
-jed

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, jedvii writes:

When did this happen?

June 1st, 2020.

I see that the change logs are updated sometimes with Name changes and other
times not.

Changes to item titles are only logged when we go through the change request
form. To learn more about logged and unlogged changes, see this page:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=519

hopefully they will be more consistent with it when they update things
in a week or two.

All changes in item type and category are always logged. And to answer this
question you posted in another thread:

Are you planning on posting a list of the changes?

Yes. Not only will they be logged in change logs, but a separate dedicated page
has been created as a quick reference guide:

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

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 27, 2020 05:51

Subject:

Re: when did plates with clips get name changed

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, jedvii writes:

I just noticed that some of the plates with clips got name changes two examples
are:
[…]
When did this happen?

First, all the clips were “harmonized” together (capitals, order, names).
It happened between March 7th 2020 and May 20th 2020 (I haven’t downloaded the
catalogue in between these dates).
E.g., for 61252, “with Clip Horizontal (thick open O clip)” became “with Open
O Clip Horizontal Thick.”

Then, the “Clip Horizontal|Vertical” was changed to “(Horizontal|Vertical Grip)”
around the 5th of June, during this discussion: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1200992

You’ll note there have been absolutely no message by the admins that the discussion
spurred the change.
At the beginning of the discussion, there was no “grip,” then it appeared.

I clicked on the change logs to the parts and they didn't
mention the name change. Is there a place to see what items get their name changed?

Yep, the logs are useless for that.

The only thing I don't understand is why the orientation is in the brackets
rather than the type. I had always understood text in brackets to refer to types..
so what is the meaning of brackets really

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 22, 2020 13:49

Subject:

Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

There is a new variant for

6641 Technic Changeover Catch
Parts: Technic

that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.

It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149

The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.

POLL:

What would you like to see done?

Thanks in advance for your responses!

There doesn’t seem to be a fuctionnal difference, so alternate item number and
added to the list of variants not (yet?) recognized.

I think I would care as a non-technic builder. I can picture it as some gothic
cathedral detail, and then the new variant wouldn't look as good.

However I am not a builder so anything is fine by me

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 13, 2020 11:57

Subject:

Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings.

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:

This will be unpopular with new buyers but may have support from sellers who
have been defrauded.
We instituted a measure to protect from fraud (based on being defrauded in the
past) where we require buyers to have a minimum of 5-10 positive feedbacks in
order to purchase certain high priced sets.
Currently, we can only put that in the item's description and buyers ignore
it and place the orders anyway which creates a sticky situation.

So the suggestion is:
Add a feature to individual listings that will prevent buyers with feedback rating
under X to purchase a certain item.
I can see merit to limiting X to 10 so sellers don't demand a buyer has 10,000
to be able to purchase items.

We allow 0 and low FB rated buyers to buy 99.99% of listings in our shop but
have been burnt a couple of times by 0 FB buyers who bought sealed sets in mint
condition and claimed they were opened and used and returned us boxes with non-LEGO
items in one instance and ransacked set on another purchase- PayPal obviously
sided with the buyers both times.

I'm hoping this will be a measure that would prevent this type of fraud and
will be optional to allow sellers the chance to opt out.

I never really liked that feature to disallow some buyers based on feedback,
and I don't understand why it exists. It's not solving a problem, it's
simply moving the problem of fraudulous buyers to other sellers that don't
use the setting. Also, from Bricklink's perspective, a website that has a
better shopping experience for experienced members than for those who just signed
up isn't very good website design in my opinion.

Such things aren't only unpopular with new buyers. Also with sellers like
me. I need buyers, and it is in my interest that they find a website that is
fully functional and that they are enthusiastic about it. If I would sign up
somewhere I would like to get good vibes, and "we don't trust you enough
yet so this is off limits" to me isn't sending a customer friendly message.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 11, 2020 05:10

Subject:

Re: Dark Green - who's going to crack first?

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, Admin_Russell writes:

In Colors, misbi writes:

Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?

Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.

The Flesh / Nougat change had nothing to do with trying to align with LEGO colors.
In general we try to align new colors or color name changes with official LEGO
color names, and that has been a policy for a long time. But even in the Flesh
/ Nougat change, we did not follow the LEGO name in every case.

Hmmm that is not entirely correct, it has got to do with aligning with
LEGO colours. That has been explicitly mentioned.

The Bricklink term was "Medium Dark Flesh/Nougat", but it has been renamed "Medium
Flesh/Nougat", even though Bricklink's word "medium" usually means "lighter".
That bit of inconsistency was considered a reasonable cost for aligning the name
with LEGO's name. So matching LEGO's name has actually been the agenda
at least once.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 6, 2020 18:55

Subject:

Re: inventory for buyers?

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

Inventories

In Inventories, Jakaloper writes:

Hi, I'm new here and cannot find anything about an inventory in the interface.
Is it a feature only available to sellers?

If so, can I upgrade to a seller status without my inventory visible to buyers?
I would like to manage my inventory only for personal purpose.

Thanks for your help.

Try rebrickable.com, it is designed especially for this purpose and shows you
what you could build with your collection.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 6, 2020 07:24

Subject:

Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:

If Bricklink dealt with the issue of unecessary hidden fees the problem would
be resolved for the most part!

Bricklink badly needs to moderate store terms. If you have to choose between
moderating the forum and moderating store terms, to me it's very clear that
the latter is way more important. They are often full of things that violate
the Bricklink TOS, and stores that have different shipping costs than their predicted
cost show simply have a bug in their system. It's just not right, and someone
needs to tell them to solve it. As a buyer you could go and tell them, but even
though I'm rarely buying here I'm already tired of policing sellers.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 3, 2020 12:42

Subject:

Re: Black vs Dark Brown

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, SylvainLS writes:

In Colors, patpendlego writes:

Hi,

The Color Guide download shows Black as RGB 212121 and Dark Brown as 510000

This makes Dark Brown darker than Black

If you convert the colours to HSL (Hue, Saturation, Lightness), or if
you convert them to grayscale (which gives the same results), you’ll see Black
has a lightness of 0.129 while Dark Brown has a lightness of 0.159.
That means Dark Brown is lighter than Black.

I would expect Black to be RGB 000000

Why is that?

#000000 is pure black. No object ever is pure black.

Anish Kapoor Black absorbs more than 99,9%, and 0,1% of 256 rounds down to 0

https://frieze.com/article/artist-makes-blackest-black-paint-world-protest-anish-kapoor

So if Lego will release parts in Anish Kapoor Black, it will be #000000

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 3, 2020 12:20

Subject:

Re: New 2020 Colors

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

This is not a comprehensive list. As always, it would be most helpful if BrickLink
included an easy way to see these.

Agree! I was searching the other day to figure out what parts are new in 2020,
but failed to find it. Thanks for posting this!

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 2, 2020 11:26

Subject:

Re: Sprues

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:

In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:

Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?

The sprue is just a piece that held this part, it has no other function outside
of that.

https://youtu.be/PjZHVRKSjyc?t=76

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 2, 2020 09:52

Subject:

Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

Not sure if you have that in Dutch (it appears gender is complicated in Dutch
grammar) but in French, grenouille (frog) is feminine and crapaud (toad) is masculine,
so little kids often mistake them for female and male of the same species. Same
with souris (mouse, f.) and rat (m.).

In the NL like in Scandinavia we only have common gender and neuter gender. And
a couple of fossilised 3 gender based phrases that you can sprinkle around to
sound classy

In Belgium they have 3 genders, so for Belgians it's always
pretty funny to hear us calling even a cow a "he", and I guess they have a point

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 1, 2020 18:38

Subject:

Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, alcedoatthis writes:

Hello Bricklinkers,

Some minutes ago, I found out that the "Coral" part (49577) is included in the
Plant Section of Bricklink, which is scientifically wrong. Coral is an Animal!

Please check additional information here:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral.html

I wrote to customer service of Bricklink explaining this mistake. I hope they
change this part to the Animal Water section!

Best,

Rita

49577 Plant Thallus / Seaweed / Coral
Parts: Plant

in my opinion this is seaweed not coral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed

and btw LEEGO offcial name of this part is plant
https://brickset.com/parts/design-49577
PLANT, W/ 3.2 SHAFT, NO. 2
so I think this also prevails towards seaweed than coral.

Out of curiousity, if there would be a coral part, would it be put in... Animal?

Should be, zoologist tells you

By the way, off topic: I think frogs should really be in Animal,Water. They look
too awkward amongst my bag of cats and dogs and his water buddies miss him.

and this is a problem

they are water and land animals. Of course all amphibians
need to breed in water and their larve need water but then adults of many species
lives only on land, adult toads for example or Salamndra salamandra. Also in
frogs are species more connected to water and less connected to water. For example
our central european Rana temporaria and Rana arvalis most adult live spend on
land and return to water to breed but Rana lessonae or Rana esculenta they prefer
water than land as adult.

Hmm I didn't consider different frog species..

Last month I had trouble
sleeping because the frogs in the street are ridiculously loud at night. They're
all in the water. Whenever I come near a ditch the sound is just crazy. I see
frogs in the water 9 times out of 10, so to me they're water animals. But
I guess we will need a biologist to identify the exact species of the Lego frog
before we can make a definitive decision

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 1, 2020 17:53

Subject:

Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, alcedoatthis writes:

49577 Plant Thallus / Seaweed / Coral
Parts: Plant

Out of curiousity, if there would be a coral part, would it be put in... Animal?

By the way, off topic: I think frogs should really be in Animal,Water. They look
too awkward amongst my bag of cats and dogs and his water buddies miss him.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jun 18, 2020 11:48

Subject:

Re: IC - Stripe payment methods

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Dutchstyle writes:

Please consider the implementation of other Stripe payment methods such as Ideal
and Sofort which can be used for instant check out. With these options offsite
payments like IBAN / bank transfers are less needed and it's very convenient/normal
for a lot of European customers to use these methods.

I have to admit that it's also a lot more cost effective to use these payment
methods over the ever increasing PayPal costs. Especially since we're not
transferring those costs to the people who buy Lego from us.

I hope that it won't be that much of a deal for the site developers to implement
since Bricklink already has a connection with Stripe, but I'm no expert in
API's etc...

For more information, please check: https://stripe.com/docs/payments/local-payment-methods

Yeah.. I had a call with the team recently and I urged them to do this. Luckily,
they said they were already working on it, which is great.

I do hope they'll do this very soon, it has taken a long time now. BrickOwl
has iDeal and Sofort through Stripe, and also in my webshop it was extremely
easy to implement with Stripe.

This is important for everyone, because Stripe allows you to accept foreign payment
methods without needing to know how it all works. The NL is one of the biggest
countries on Bricklink and all sellers will benefit from it if people can pay
by iDeal. IMO this is really one of the top priority issues right now. PayPal
is way too expensive and just not convenient for everybody.

It would be beneficial on Bricklink's side as well. There will be more business
so more fees, less money leaking out to PayPal, and also it will vastly increase
the percentage of payments that is done onsite - which is what Bricklink really
likes to see.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jun 11, 2020 04:42

Subject:

Re: Include "Date Listed" on Order Summary Items

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

That's indeed very useful info. But your problem can be fixed: Use the Retain
option. That way empty lots stay in your inventory. This is also useful when
you turn out to have more of a part than was ordered/listed. Simply delete zero
quantity lots from your inventory once in a while (if you wish)

In Suggestions, speshy writes:

Hi,

I would like to suggest that "Date Listed" information be made available to a
seller on each "Item in Order" listed on an Order Summary. This is particularly
helpful when an entire lot has been purchased. Allow me to explain:

On several occasions, I have found the "Date Listed" information to be quite
useful when looking for a part that I am unable to locate in my inventory. For
example, when I see that I listed Part X last Tuesday, I might remember that
I put Part X in Tray Y, in preparation for storage. However, "Date Listed" information
is only available when an item is still in stock or in a stockroom. Once the
lot is sold, the information is no longer available (to the best of my knowledge).
Which puts one in an unfavorable situation if they have misplaced a part and
are on the clock for shipping an order out!

Such a feature might look something like the attached image.

Thanks for your consideration.

K

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jun 4, 2020 08:51

Subject:

Re: We have a new Catalog Administrator!

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Hello everyone,

I have some long-awaited news for you! We have created a new Catalog Admin position
which has privileges on both sides of the system, the catalog and inventories.
This is a culmination of about 3 years of work, and we are so proud of our first
ever member to take this position, Hygrotus.

He has steadily worked his way up to this level from his years of being an outstanding
and reliable contributor, to a special class of contributor known as an Inventories
Verifier, to one year experience as an Inv Admin, and then most recently about
14 months as a Catalog Associate. We are pleased that he has stuck with the program
and now is going to forge ahead.

We are combining the two "halves" of the system for many reasons, but the main
one being efficiency. If only one admin is available on a given weekend, for
example, we can take care of contributions on both sides, which are often dependent
on each other.

We will retain the Catalog Associate and Inv Admin positions for the purpose
of training new Catalog Admins. They will be considered transitory positions.

For more info on the Community Expert Program, please see this post:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1196395

You may also visit our Community Expert Program page:

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

and also read a few FAQs in the Help Center:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=974

Congrats Hygrotus! And thanks for all the work you're doing

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jun 4, 2020 03:19

Subject:

Re: Show Tracking number on Orders list

Viewed:

31 times

Topic: