BrickLink Discussion Forum

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.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 18:14

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

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

2815 Tire Technic Wedge Belt Wheel
Parts: Wheel, Tire & Tread

a tire?

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?

32072 Technic Knob Cog / Gear / Wheel with Axle Hole (+ Orientation)
Parts: Technic

would be a Technic, Gear if the part about teeth wasn’t in the definition.

We could also put all the digger buckets together (even those in Vehicle).
(That could lead to wondering about the tipper buckets and ends but it seems
to me digger buckets have a recognizable shape the tipper buckets don’t have,
especially the tipper ends.)

I would also argue that

32474 Technic Ball Joint
Parts: Technic

53585 Technic Ball Joint with Through Axle Hole
Parts: Technic

are Ball Joints and we could have a category for Ball Joints but those are divided
in the theme categories Bionicle and Hero Factory and as much as I don’t like
function categories, especially when shape is more obvious / directly recognized,
I really don’t like theme categories at all.

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?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 15:41

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

52 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).

Forgot to add: How should someone know a tread is “Technic” or not? How
should someone know the difference between a “Chain Link” and a “Tread”?

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

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 15:36

Subject:

Re: Moving Things - Responses

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

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.[…]

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 10:53

Subject:

Re: brittle gray ??

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, HC writes:

not bleached by me..I wash with dish washing soap
but the ligt gray ones are a bit flexible like they should be,and the lighter
ones are quite hard and snap easy when bended a bit

I wasn’t implying you were the culprit

But I think that’s what you’d get if you let soak ABS in bleach, or in very strong
peroxyde, for too long.
The plastic is over-degraded.
The colour-marbling is a cue.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 10:41

Subject:

Re: brittle gray ??

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, HC writes:

hi
i found some modified plates with the same flaws as brittle blue parts
the color is lighter and not equal and the parts break easy.
official lego logo so original so far.
is this common? since i have never seen it before
regards..hans

Have they been washed in bleach?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 2, 2020 10:40

Subject:

Re: part 649pb07

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crepundi writes:

So instead part

649pb04 Road Sign Triangle with Pedestrian Crossing 2 People Pattern
Parts: Road Sign, Decorated

should be a children playing sign?

It seems so.

On a note, is it really “children playing”?

In France, it’s “attention, école” (beware, school) when the kids have schoolbags
and “attention, endroit fréquenté par des enfants” (beware, area frequented by
children) when they don’t.
I mean, they don’t always play, especially going to school

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 19:24

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

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?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 19:11

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

How about: For items that are conical, including truncated cones.

Jean tried to avoid circular definitions.
Removing a few words, yours becomes: “Cones: conical items and truncated cones.”

Othewise we could also have: “Cones: well, cones, you dummy!”

The definition of Brick depends on the term brick.

Brick - For basic and unmodified LEGO system building bricks with one
or more top studs, plain straight sides and a hollow bottom.

Plus it relies on the terms basic and unmodified without defining them. Of course,
if you understand the context, then you know what the meaning is. But unmodified
could mean as supplied by LEGO, as it does elsewhere on BL.

I didn’t say the other definitions were perfect

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 17:48

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

[…]
I think that is exactly the point. Where there is a simple unambiguous definition,
why not use it?

Because the more you explain, the fewer ambiguities there are?

It would be possible to insert a formally correct mathematical
definition of a cone but does it really help any more than saying a cone is a
cone.

Well, there are several. What do you think of “a degenerated hyperboloid of
revolution”

35563 Tower Roof 2 x 4 x 4 Half Cone Shaped with Roof Tiles
Parts: Roof

Frankly, if this part has “Cone” in its description and isn’t in the Cone category,
then I think it’s not placed where it should.

Besides, the Roof category is useless because it’s too small, and parts in there
aren’t even “roofs”: most are cones, there’s one pyramid (which’s a cone with
a square base

), a big slope “assembly,” and crenels.
At most, the conical roofs could be in “Cone, Modified” if there were more of
them.

Incidentally, this part uses the base word cone to define its shape. So presumably
people need to understand the word cone here, so why not in the definitions.

Many parts have their category in their name. So, problem solved, no need to
define anything because the words are already used elsewhere?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 17:10

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

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.”

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.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 14:00

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

How about: For items that are conical, including truncated cones.

Jean tried to avoid circular definitions.
Removing a few words, yours becomes: “Cones: conical items and truncated cones.”

Othewise we could also have: “Cones: well, cones, you dummy!”

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Aug 1, 2020 12:40

Subject:

Re: Category Definitions suggestions, Part 1

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

[…]
Cone - For items with a round base that narrow to a tip.

Issue: ‘narrow to a tip’ is not accurate as this category contains both cones
and truncated cones. The sides need to be defined as flat (ie planar or not curved)
to distinguish the category from Brick, Round.

Solution: new definition:

Cone - For items with a round base with sides that taper and are not curved.

“not vertically curved”
Because they are horizontally curved and that could be misunderstood (“What?
They are round but shan’t be curved?”).

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 28, 2020 11:06

Subject:

Re: discolored new white parts

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, jennnifer writes:

In Colors, ricardo1475 writes:

I need some help about discolored white new parts.

How is it possible that new white parts are not really white any more?
I have part out some brand new sets (straight from the box) some months ago and
I sold some white parts. Now I get the question from the buyer that the parts
are not really white. I have stored the parts in a drawer where there is no sunlight.
How is it possible that the parts are not really white any more? is it a factory
mistake or is it the dark drawer ore what else.
Can any body help me what the problem is.

Johan

I find that some White is a stark bright white and some White is a warmer yellowish
shade right out of the box. This color variation isn't the same as what happens
to white when it's left out in the sun. I believe it is more of a problem
with production such as happens with Reddish Brown and some other colors. Maybe
a color expert can weigh in on this?

Jen

Yep, “they are not really white” isn’t really precise.
Some is due to age but some is simply because TLG’s quality control on colours
has never been good (and I find the “warmer shade” to be a bit pinkish

).
And all we get is “we endeavour to be better in the future.”

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 28, 2020 07:49

Subject:

Re: Studs vs "knobs"?

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Catalog, platinum_lego writes:

In Catalog, kirbogel writes:

I was surprised to see in the 'replacements parts' section of the Lego
website, that they refer to studs as knobs! Not always – there are a few parts
where studs are referenced, but they're vastly outnumbered by knobs.

A lot of their official names for bricks differ to those used here.

See attached image.

Maybe TLG consider studs to be solid and knobs to be hollow??

Nope, there are hollow studs that TLG calls studs.

It’s just that TLG’s naming is inconsistent, riddled with typos and errors, and
not always useful (WIG #139?).

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 27, 2020 17:07

Subject:

Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, stephan3321 writes:

[…]

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

This new axle hole does not hold a bar securely. The old version does. That makes
the difference functional as well.

Oh okay. Maybe that’s why they changed the mould.
Thanks for the info

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 26, 2020 21:05

Subject:

Re: when did plates with clips get name changed

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jedvii writes:

[…]
I see that the change logs are updated sometimes with Name changes and other
times not. hopefully they will be more consistent with it when they update things
in a week or two.

It depends if the changes are made through the usual forms or directly in the
database (or maybe through admin forms for changes in batches).
I thought there was a new (unwritten) rule about avoiding direct modifications
to have tracks now but it seems not.

btw, that was weird in that thread you posted about the guy flipping out on your
example of a loaded question (and the wife beating thing)

Yep.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 26, 2020 19:46

Subject:

Re: when did plates with clips get name changed

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

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.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 25, 2020 13:19

Subject:

Re: 44567

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Soviet writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Soviet writes:

[…]
Ooooooh, you're right, it's in the hinges... Bit counter-intuitive, but
I see the point.

Yes, it’s counter-intuitive because your intuition is to think shape (plate modified)
has a higher priority than function (hinge), and so they should be in the category
“plate modified.”

Or your intuition’s to think that the shape should always be in the description
so that you can find the part even when it’s not in the category named from the
shape. But that’s also counter-intuitive that a category doesn’t contain all
the parts that fall under its name.

It's all my brain's fault! As always!

I forgot to say I think it’s the same way in a lot of people’s brains. So maybe
the fault isn’t in those brains

(Though there’s this saying: billions upon billions of flies eat s… every day,
they can’t all be wrong!

)

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 25, 2020 10:09

Subject:

Re: 44567

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Soviet writes:

[…]
Ooooooh, you're right, it's in the hinges... Bit counter-intuitive, but
I see the point.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 22, 2020 15:50

Subject:

Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]
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.

Yeah I considered the value of the visual differences… but that part mostly comes
in Red.

I think this part goes along with many of the other non-differenciated variants
we have now.
IIUC, their being split will be considered later, when the unwritten rules will
have eventually be written down.
So, I’d rather wait for these rules…
… unless this poll is some kind of feeler to know how to orient the writting
of said rules?

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

Lucky you

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 22, 2020 13:36

Subject:

Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

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.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 22, 2020 08:57

Subject:

Re: Catalog images

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, pcthurman writes:

Why are so many catalog images showing Catalog error? Or is this just me?

This is what I am seing...

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&catLike=W&sortBy=N&sortAsc=A&sz=50&catType=I&catID=611

Errors on this page here too.

Some kind of “update” in progress?

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 21, 2020 09:57

Subject:

Re: Minifig series: boxes/instructions?

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:

[…]
I understand the reasoning. Currently, I have some of these packages / instructions:
for minifig do which do I put it on sale? For minifig 1? For minifig 2? For all
of them?

Yes, a seller’s nightmare.

Since the item is exactly the same, it would make sense BrickLink allows to add
it as a reference (one per minifig of the same series) to one physical item (or
SKU).

Just as sets have inventory of items, the minifig from a series could have an
inventory that not only holds the reference to the minifig, but also to the leaflet
/ packaging. That would solve it?

That would make these sets different from other sets that have separate “Original
Box” and “Instructions” items in the catalogue.

Now, I just saw there isn’t even a “This item is similar to” or whatever link
they could use. That would already be a step to solve this.

And it’s not like there aren’t situations where a buyer needs to put several
alternate items in their WL to be able to get one.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Jul 21, 2020 09:05

Subject:

Re: Minifig series: boxes/instructions?

Viewed:

33 times

Topic: