Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | tons_of_bricks  | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:30 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Those big plates with the big round hole in them only comes in dark bluish gray,
so I'd say the majority of this lot is dark bluish gray.
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:29 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Not very easy to say without a reference but there’s a plate that looks more
olivey on the upper left, so I’d say most of it is DBG but there’s DG in there
too.
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:23 | | Subject: | Color id | | Viewed: | 156 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | macyenco | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 06:49 | | Subject: | Incorrect weight | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi there,
Can someone please enter the correct weight of instruction booklet 6624 Delivery
Van. Due to Bricklink catalog the weight of this booklet is 55 grams, but it
should be 3 grams.
Thank you.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2020 08:40 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Another issue might be sticker sheets that come with gear sometimes have the
same numbers on different sheets. I guess these can have A's and B's
added if needed.
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2020 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | Thanks for doing the cleanup and for asking about ideas. I think it would be
nice if a description of what is on the sticker sheet as part of each entry.
This one is really nice:
[p=SPACEstk03]
It would be great if this one said "United States and Three American Flags"
Wesley
|
You can submit a title change request here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
|
 |
| Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2020 00:48 | | Subject: | Re: DELETE ALL ITEM IN MY INVENTORY | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, otaviomoser writes:
| | Hi,
I would like to DELETE all items in my inventory and later upload them with the
correct quantities.
How should I do it?
Thank you
|
Why don't you put all items into a stockroom.
This way the inventory is still there with the prices and you can just go in
and change the quantity and then move it back into a store item.
If you still want to delete your inventory, the location to do this is in the
same place.
On your inventory page
https://www.bricklink.com/inventory.asp
Click on the category box.
Then click on "Change availability status" radio button and then click on the
"to Stockroom Item" button.
(If you do want to delete your entire inventory, there is a delete items button
as well)
Make sure to click on the "submit changes" button on the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2020 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I would also like that color be required for sticker sheets. And that it be based
on what the sticker is printed on. So, white, trans-clear, Chrome Silver, Chrome
Gold. it's useful for MOC builders.
|
Great idea. Starbeanie is THE sticker authority.
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2020 23:36 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, blockbuster writes:
| | Stating if the sheet is complete or incomplete would be useful for the price
guide.
|
Nice idea
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2020 23:34 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks for doing the cleanup and for asking about ideas. I think it would be
nice if a description of what is on the sticker sheet as part of each entry.
This one is really nice:
[p=SPACEstk03]
It would be great if this one said "United States and Three American Flags"
Wesley
|
| Author: | otaviomoser | | Posted: | Mar 1, 2020 19:37 | | Subject: | DELETE ALL ITEM IN MY INVENTORY | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi,
I would like to DELETE all items in my inventory and later upload them with the
correct quantities.
How should I do it?
Thank you
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: please change 40166 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, jbricks writes:
| | set 40166 has a new counterpart in the minifig,
|
| | why does this have to be so hard?
|
I made it easy for you:
Please add a photo of this figure using this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2020 07:44 | | Subject: | Re: please change 40166 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, jbricks writes:
| | set 40166 has a new counterpart in the minifig,
the darktan hair is different in about half of the sets i parted,
new partnumber that has to be added is, 25972 instead of 62810
tried changing it in the inventory (no luck since its a minifig entry) so cannot
use the inventory id of the part.
tried the minifig, but that can't have alternate parts,
why does this have to be so hard?
trying to add to the catalog seems to be a 1 time thing for me now, since it's
already taking me 30 minutes to do this, and nothing has happened,
|
Minifigures can't have alternate parts. So an alternate minifigure needs
to be added to the catalog. That new minifigure can then be added as an alternate
to the set inventory.
|
|
| Author: | jbricks | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2020 07:39 | | Subject: | please change 40166 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| set 40166 has a new counterpart in the minifig,
the darktan hair is different in about half of the sets i parted,
new partnumber that has to be added is, 25972 instead of 62810
tried changing it in the inventory (no luck since its a minifig entry) so cannot
use the inventory id of the part.
tried the minifig, but that can't have alternate parts,
why does this have to be so hard?
trying to add to the catalog seems to be a 1 time thing for me now, since it's
already taking me 30 minutes to do this, and nothing has happened,
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll state the obvious: put the color in the description field, not the color
field.
Clear carrier
White carrier
Silver carrier
etc.
In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Regarding listing these with color, one of the things we would lose by doing
it this way is the rather dependable position that sticker sheets occupy at the
top of the inventory.
|
Only if you sort by colour first.
I guess most people don’t change the default sorting but it’s nonetheless a welcome
option.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours
|
Just for scale, and I probably should have included this in my original message,
here are the duplicate listings (not including NA/Int):
Sheet appears in 2 sets: 95 instances of occurrence
3 sets: 21
4 sets: 5
5 sets: 2
6 sets: 6
8 sets: 2
10 sets: 1
11 sets: 1
12 sets: 1
13 sets: 1
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Regarding listing these with color, one of the things we would lose by doing
it this way is the rather dependable position that sticker sheets occupy at the
top of the inventory.
|
Only if you sort by colour first.
I guess most people don’t change the default sorting but it’s nonetheless a welcome
option.
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I would also like that color be required for sticker sheets. And that it be based
on what the sticker is printed on. So, white, trans-clear, Chrome Silver, Chrome
Gold. it's useful for MOC builders.
|
Regarding listing these with color, one of the things we would lose by doing
it this way is the rather dependable position that sticker sheets occupy at the
top of the inventory.
|
If they were as suggested, not a part any longer, that would not be an issue.
A dedicated section like instructions or sets... sticker sheets?
Or is this messing with the database and too much to accomplish?
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I will admit that that can be convenient at times.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I would also like that color be required for sticker sheets. And that it be based
on what the sticker is printed on. So, white, trans-clear, Chrome Silver, Chrome
Gold. it's useful for MOC builders.
|
Regarding listing these with color, one of the things we would lose by doing
it this way is the rather dependable position that sticker sheets occupy at the
top of the inventory.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 09:12 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15 should all be merged.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=5&catID=160
If the only difference with Intl/NA is the sheet number, then combine them. If
there is a difference, keep them separate.
I would also like that color be required for sticker sheets. And that it be based
on what the sticker is printed on. So, white, trans-clear, Chrome Silver, Chrome
Gold. it's useful for MOC builders.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
|
I'm sure many here know, but for those that don't, Bret has specialized
in Lego sticker sales in the past, and has more knowledge on the topic than most.
A voice to listen to in this.
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:59 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
I agree with all of this.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:59 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | From a buyer's point of view, I don't think it does make sense.
|
Seller too. The going price for the same sticker might be higher on a different
listing and you might not even know.
|
Yes, true. It also increases the number of people looking for the one you list
as, although of course also increases the number of competitor sheets being sold.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15 should all be merged.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=5&catID=160
If the only difference with Intl/NA is the sheet number, then combine them. If
there is a difference, keep them separate.
I would also like that color be required for sticker sheets. And that it be based
on what the sticker is printed on. So, white, trans-clear, Chrome Silver, Chrome
Gold. it's useful for MOC builders.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:49 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | From a buyer's point of view, I don't think it does make sense.
|
Seller too. The going price for the same sticker might be higher on a different
listing and you might not even know.
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:38 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | 1) I wouldn't eliminate duplicates because it makes sense to have 4444stk01
and 4445stk01 even if they are the same.
|
From a buyer's point of view, I don't think it does make sense. If a
sticker sheet has come in five different sets, then you have to look at five
different listings if you want to know the going price / best price or availability.
If you have one on a wants list then you might miss it completely in a store
if a seller has one of the other numbered but exactly the same sheets.
|
Good point!
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 1) I wouldn't eliminate duplicates because it makes sense to have 4444stk01
and 4445stk01 even if they are the same.
|
From a buyer's point of view, I don't think it does make sense. If a
sticker sheet has come in five different sets, then you have to look at five
different listings if you want to know the going price / best price or availability.
If you have one on a wants list then you might miss it completely in a store
if a seller has one of the other numbered but exactly the same sheets.
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 07:57 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
1) I wouldn't eliminate duplicates because it makes sense to have 4444stk01
and 4445stk01 even if they are the same.
2) No strong opinion on Intl/NA versions, but more inclined to lump them together
(as in don't mantain separate catalog entries).
3) Sticker shouldn't be a Part! In my opinion  Should be treated as Instructions
or Original Box.
4) Thank you!
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Oh, yes!
In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Are they still doing separate sheets for North America? It has been a while
since I have seen new ones, but maybe people stopped fussing with it? Or I got
numb?
I don't see a NEED for separate listings for NA on its face, but eliminating
them complicates my preferred solution to the other part, which is adopting the
5 digit number on the sheet as the item number. The name being "Sticker Sheet
|
Well can't you add one number as the ID and the other to the alternate ID
as with some parts?
| | for 40175 40176" may not get too cumbersome. I don't know how overused some
sheets are. But "40175-40176-40177stk01" is not a fun item number.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Are they still doing separate sheets for North America? It has been a while
since I have seen new ones, but maybe people stopped fussing with it? Or I got
numb?
I don't see a NEED for separate listings for NA on its face, but eliminating
them complicates my preferred solution to the other part, which is adopting the
5 digit number on the sheet as the item number. The name being "Sticker Sheet
|
Well can't you add one number as the ID and the other to the alternate ID
as with some parts?
| | for 40175 40176" may not get too cumbersome. I don't know how overused some
sheets are. But "40175-40176-40177stk01" is not a fun item number.
|
|
|
| Author: | blockbuster | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Stating if the sheet is complete or incomplete would be useful for the price
guide.
Sticker sheets that appear in multiple sets are an issue possibly the number
should be the first set that used that sheet, any subsequent set that uses the
same sticker sheet could be referenced back to the first set or sheet number.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 06:39 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I don't see a NEED for separate listings for NA on its face, but eliminating
them complicates my preferred solution to the other part, which is adopting the
5 digit number on the sheet as the item number. The name being "Sticker Sheet
for 40175 40176" may not get too cumbersome. I don't know how overused some
sheets are. But "40175-40176-40177stk01" is not a fun item number.
|
Would the part number need to be that long if it is used that way? If it first
appeared in set 40175, call it 40175stk01. If it appears in lots of sets at the
same time, use the lowest set number.
Although I am not against using a number actually on the sheet to identify it,
it is often the first thing to type in if you are unsure of what you have. That
should also be searchable.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 05:56 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Are they still doing separate sheets for North America? It has been a while
since I have seen new ones, but maybe people stopped fussing with it? Or I got
numb?
I don't see a NEED for separate listings for NA on its face, but eliminating
them complicates my preferred solution to the other part, which is adopting the
5 digit number on the sheet as the item number. The name being "Sticker Sheet
for 40175 40176" may not get too cumbersome. I don't know how overused some
sheets are. But "40175-40176-40177stk01" is not a fun item number.
|
|
| Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 05:55 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
As far as I know, all duplicate sticker sheets before 90s were exactly the same,
like
Match #602
So for those, the number of the relevent sets should appear in the name, like..
Sticker for Sets 1966, 6373, 6377, 6391 - Sheet 2, 5 White Window Stripes
but "Sheet 2,5" should then be removed.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 05:15 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Many thanks for starting this! My preference would be to eliminate the NA/international
entries for consistency, maybe notes could be used to mention differences and
sellers could specifiy in listings if they wish. I'd also like to see used/incomplete
tags for part sheets, again where sellers specify in the listing what is actually
included or missing.
Robert
|
I think the same as Robert and yorbrick
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | But stud dimensions can be in the title...?
|
I did not design this website or the way it's intended to function.
Nor do I have any significant input on the way it will operate in the future,
at least from a design standpoint.
But we can talk about all this in further detail if/when the dimensions project
occurs.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension
|
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
But stud dimensions can be in the title...?
|
|
| Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:15 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Many thanks for starting this! My preference would be to eliminate the NA/international
entries for consistency, maybe notes could be used to mention differences and
sellers could specifiy in listings if they wish. I'd also like to see used/incomplete
tags for part sheets, again where sellers specify in the listing what is actually
included or missing.
Robert
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:01 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
Personally, I'd like to see duplicates removed. If a sheet appears in one
set then call it "Sticker Sheet for 10001". If it then appears in another set,
call it "Sticker Sheet for 10001 10002". For NA/International sheets, a single
entry is fine for me unless there are actual differences in the stickers on the
sheet.
I'd also like to see the word sheet go in there, to indicate that these should
be sticker sheets as supplied by LEGO, and not stickers removed from sheets and
applied to parts. Plus while we are at it, incomplete sheets should not be allowed
to be listed under the complete sheet listing unless the system is changed to
allow incomplete items to be excluded from searches / price guide.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
|
See those here (along with some other kinds of sticker matches):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=5&catID=160
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 03:51 | | Subject: | March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 212 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| At long last, it is time. By the end of March, my goal is to eliminate duplicate
catalog entries for sticker sheets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=15
You can see that this has been moved from Section 11.1 to 11.2 on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours - especially those of you who've
given this some thought over the past decade or so that some of us have wanted
it.
Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can
we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least
amount of disruption?
As a side note, how do you feel about the NA/International duplicate entries?
These are the same sticker sheets, but have different item numbers, differently-sized
paper backing, and in some cases a slightly different finish (matte vs. glossy).
I don't want to get too distracted with this particular side discussion,
but do we need to maintain separate catalog entries for these sheets? Do you
want us to?
Looking forward to hearing some discussion and seeing some ideas other than my
own to get these duplicate entries handled.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
If the next argument I hear is that it should be a 1 x 2 because that's how
many anti-studs are on the bottom then the
should also be a 1 x 2, right?
|
Sure should, and the description should be “Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Tipper
End Flat with Pins”!
Barman, another one! The seagulls can walk.¹
(¹ Meaning it’s low tide. I don’t know if that translates well  )
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
If the next argument I hear is that it should be a 1 x 2 because that's how
many anti-studs are on the bottom then the
should also be a 1 x 2, right?
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
|
That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
|
That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
|
Okay, the picture.
And tt’s somewhat okay to have only “1 x 1” within the description because it’s
followed by a “with…”, but what help is “1x1” in the size field?
Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
The description field doesn’t give you the real size at all.
The picture doesn’t give you a useful approximation.
And were the size field filled this way (1x2), it would be useless.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
|
True, but in terms of discovery...search...if you want to find something that's
1x1 and you find all these other things: 1 1/3, 1.4, 1 1/8, how useful is that
set of results?
Now granted, the whole search mechanism and the whole database need to be addressed,
but either the data is correct or it is incorrect. Sort of correct, sometimes,
in some instances, if you look at a picture, and so on...that's just noise
to be sifted through. So the results are useless or nearly useless.
Folks have settled for this dog poop data here for so long, they've become
accustomed to or accepting of it. And there's no need. These things can be
fixed now...at least to some degree. Everybody has their own kludge. Nobody should
need one.
|
|
| Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
Jim
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | […]
| | Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
|
I do not think it's searchable
If you take this part as example
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
Searching "1.12" or "1.67" will not return this part.
It return the same result as "1 12" or "1 67"
The search form replace '.' with ' '
|
Okay, thanks.
And that’s also another example of the description containing the size but in
another for (fractions instead of decimals). So the more I look into the size
field and the less it’s useful.
|
|
| Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
|
I do not think it's searchable
If you take this part as example
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
Searching "1.12" or "1.67" will not return this part.
It return the same result as "1 12" or "1 67"
The search form replace '.' with ' '
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | This honestly is a good idea. But it would require individually changing the
dimensions for 30,501 parts.
|
Yeah. So?
(I'd think Axaday would be all over it once he stops taunting Bill.)
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:22 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
(I can’t test if it is because I don’t know of a part that would have a size
field without having the dimensions also repeated in their description. So if
I search a dimension, I can’t tell if the part was found by its size or by its
description.)
This size field is exactly what mfav was talking about for the reforging of the
description: dimensions should be one (or three) of the closed-valued fields
that should replace the free-valued description field.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:07 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension
|
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
|
| Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | ... it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
|
It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
|
+1
And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension like this part
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
| |
If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink. Populate the dimensions field...systematically...x,
y, z...in mm...and that ought to go some way towards sorting out the volume calculations
for shipping and whatnot, wouldn't it?
My two cents towards more fully developing roadmap #7.
Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:01 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
|
There shouldn't be any parts in the catalog with millimeters or centimeters
in the dimensions field (only everything else but parts). If you know of any
items in the Parts item type that use something other than stud-size dimensions,
then these need to be corrected.
| | If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink.
|
This honestly is a good idea. But it would require individually changing the
dimensions for 30,501 parts.
| | Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
It's confusing to many people. This is what the catalog has been operating
off of, pretty much unchanged, for two decades:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=261
Even in my new catalog help pages, I struggled with the topic. The new page
is frankly not much better:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2486
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | ... it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
|
It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink. Populate the dimensions field...systematically...x,
y, z...in mm...and that ought to go some way towards sorting out the volume calculations
for shipping and whatnot, wouldn't it?
My two cents towards more fully developing roadmap #7.
Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:36 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Sorry, dyslexia kicking in
|
I figured so. I tried an assortment of item numbers using the numbers you gave,
but to no avail.
So that part is one of the parts that exists in a non-standard size, meaning
a size that is not easily measured in stud dimensions. Another way to look at
it, as has been done in the past, is that it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
For some of these parts dimensions were added in the past. Sometimes the dimensions
were added for the base only (as in this case) and at other times dimensions
were added based on the base + attachment (as you suggest should be done here).
For tens of thousands of other similar parts, stud-size dimensions simply weren't
allowed. In fact, 28,000+ parts in the catalog lack dimensions for this reason.
This is a known issue that needs to be addressed and is item seven on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
I cannot locate 10507 in the catalog. Please post a link.
|
Sorry, dyslexia kicking in
15070
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: How to make 'Special Assembly'? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Ricardo_Penguin writes:
| | Hello, I was looking at the Special Assembly category
|
| | And I was wondering how do you make one for the catalog?
|
At the moment we're not particularly interested in adding new special assemblies
because of the difficulties they present with inventories.
|
| Author: | Emperor_Penguin | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:23 | | Subject: | How to make 'Special Assembly'? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello, I was looking at the Special Assembly category
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=961
And I was wondering how do you make one for the catalog?
I wanted to make a few for some different assemblies, like the Minecraft Iron
Golem figure.
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
|
[P=10507]
| | 10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
I cannot locate 10507 in the catalog. Please post a link.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: Tooth vs Toothed | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | The other day I was searching the catalog.
I typed in "Saber-Tooth" and only the following two minifigs came up.
I was looking for
which I found by going to animal, land and typing "cat, " then scrolling.
Should all be Tooth or all be Toothed ?
|
Or maybe just left alone, and I use better search practices like "saber-t*"
My formatting was garbage and you can't edit a post, so here is a replacement.
The animal's name is smilodon, but saber-toothed tiger is a generally accepted
substitute. Not saber-tooth tiger. Unfortunately, those minifigs come from a
set named "Saber-Tooth Tiger Tribe Pack".
|
+1 figured that was the case on the figs
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been thinking about part variants and I'm beginning to be of the
opinion that variants should only be considered for separate catalog entries
when absolutely necessary. There are no guidelines at the moment for part variant
splits, but we need them and we need to rethink part variants and how they're
handled in general.
|
There's a lot to consider.
1. should a piece be restricted to its original part number? If 3713 is superceded
by 6590, which is superceded by 42798, should those subsequent numbers become
official parts, or are you going to continue to collectively house all those
different flavors of the same part under a single number?
Note: http://v4ei.com/brickref/3713-variants.php
I don't know if those are all actually 3713, or by the time you get to the
fifth one if that's actually a 6590 or what, but...one one hand if you're
wanting to research and find the actual part (or as reasonably close to the actual
part) that came with a set, and you have the instructions, and the instructions
say 6590, then you want a 6590. On the other hand, if you're making a thing
with the grandkids, it really doesn't matter. There's a "continuum of
relevance" there that needs to be addressed.
2. http://v4ei.com/brickref/30104v69109.php
Those ought to go on the list to be split if they aren't already. 30104 and
69109 somewhere along the line are decidedly different parts. I don't know
if there's a 136mm 69109 or a 128mm 30104, but having one entry for items
with two different numbers and functional differences ought to be separated.
3. Whatever you decide to do with the variants, it's pretty clear to me that
they need to be investigated in greater detail to have sufficient understanding
of a part before being able to make an informed decision.
4. It would be nice if the points considered in making the decision were noted
on the parts' pages and all relevant parts are cross referenced with links.
|
|
| Author: | FlyingEugene | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Tooth vs Toothed | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | The other day I was searching the catalog.
I typed in "Saber-Tooth" and only the following two minifigs came up.
I was looking for
which I found by going to animal, land and typing "cat, " then scrolling.
Should all be Tooth or all be Toothed ?
|
Or maybe just left alone, and I use better search practices like "saber-t*"
A quick Google search returned that Saber-Tooth isn't a thing. It looks
like the proper name is Sabre-Toothed Cat/Tiger.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Tooth vs Toothed | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | […]
The animal's name is smilodon, but saber-toothed tiger is a generally accepted
substitute.
|
Or sabre-toothed or sabretoothed or sabertoothed… 
| | Not saber-tooth tiger. Unfortunately, those minifigs come from a
set named "Saber-Tooth Tiger Tribe Pack".
|
When it’s not UK vs. US, it’s the Danes’ fault
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 11:26 | | Subject: | Re: Tooth vs Toothed | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | The other day I was searching the catalog.
I typed in "Saber-Tooth" and only the following two minifigs came up.
I was looking for
which I found by going to animal, land and typing "cat, " then scrolling.
Should all be Tooth or all be Toothed ?
|
Or maybe just left alone, and I use better search practices like "saber-t*"
My formatting was garbage and you can't edit a post, so here is a replacement.
The animal's name is smilodon, but saber-toothed tiger is a generally accepted
substitute. Not saber-tooth tiger. Unfortunately, those minifigs come from a
set named "Saber-Tooth Tiger Tribe Pack".
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 11:16 | | Subject: | Tooth vs Toothed | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| The other day I was searching the catalog.
I typed in "Saber-Tooth" and only the following two minifigs came up.
I was looking for
which I found by going to animal, land and typing "cat, " then scrolling.
Should all be Tooth or all be Toothed ?
Or maybe just left alone, and I use better search practices like "saber-t*"
or just "tiger"
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I did note there would be pain associated with the proposal. Thus the question
mark in the title.
We’re finally getting three asp pages rewritten, so maybe the logjam on the dev
side is breaking. Lobby for a better underlying database structure. If you get
that, then cross site labeling issues become moot.
I’d like to see all the nonsense labeling of decorated parts go, too. That should
be an auto increment process handled by the database, not the arcane manual search
process with b p c x and whatever else gets thrown in there with the kitchen
sink.
Real improvement will look like pain for a while. In the end it is probably a
wash. You can have a big knife cut once, or ten paper cuts a day forever.
Certainly agree with the radical rethink. That also becomes a non issue with
a better underlying database.
I’m arguing for consistency in presentation and labeling at the moment, as those
things are achievable within the current structure.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 02:09 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
|
Good idea and I added it to the roadmap (currently project 36):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
However, there are some things to consider here. First is that the a/b/c letters
are generally intended to indicate the chronological appearance of part variants.
Some have been intentionally switched in the past solely for the purpose of
indicating chronological order.
That order may or may not correspond with the axle hole appearance order, so
the renumbering will present issues. But the renaming should present no difficulties.
An additional issue with renumbering is the discord it causes for other websites.
Like it or not, at this point in time BrickLink generally sets the standard
that other sites follow and renumbering items must take this into consideration.
I personally would very much like to get rid of the mess of old item numbers
brought over from Peeron and who knows where else:
[P=3068bpx8]
[P=3068bps1]
As for single catalog entries consisting of two different axles types in some
cases, this is because those entries haven't yet been split.
But your post raises the larger issue of part variants in general. As time passes
this page makes the scale of the problem ever clearer (and I've still got
a bunch of updates to make):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2488
I've been thinking about part variants and I'm beginning to be of the
opinion that variants should only be considered for separate catalog entries
when absolutely necessary. There are no guidelines at the moment for part variant
splits, but we need them and we need to rethink part variants and how they're
handled in general.
Like, a radical rethink. We can never hope to do justice to part variants in
such a hidebound system as BrickLink is compelled to be by the weight of its
own impact on adult LEGO usage, nor can we ever hope for accuracy for older sets.
And trying results in unnecessary hassle and expense for everyone involved.
|
|
| Author: | Heartbricker | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 22:11 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
In theory, it sounds reasonable.
However, i fear it may hurt sellers/buyers that purchase parts for MOCs listed
on 3rd party sites (i.e: Rebrickable) that may not be able to adapt the part
lists to the new suggested format.
that scenario could potentially trigger frustration among buyers trying to source
pieces for MOCs listed on Rebrickable and could hurt sales because sellers won't
show up as having those parts on rebrickable while actually having these part
on hand but under a part number that is suddenly incompatible with the Rebrickable/current
bricklink part numbers.
Unless this issue can be addressed- it may be best to leave things as they are.
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
Wow, that is a really good idea.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:45 | | Subject: | Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 173 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
|
| Author: | myixjetjet24 | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:32 | | Subject: | Re: 92586 White Dog, Alsatian / German Shepherd | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, myixjetjet24 writes:
| | Where did it come from? I cannot find any set containing this.
|
Probably the factory.
I know that sounds snide, but I mean some people can get testshots and stuff
from the factory that weren't produced for sale.
|
... and that escaped the printing process.
is of course the unprinted variety of
I bought mine in 2016 from TakeABrick (https://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=TakeAbricK&itemID=135212983)
- which if I remember well, was a chance find at the time.
Hans-Peter
|
hahah I thought, someone just erased the spots from the dalmatian dog
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: 32553c06 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Happy to contribute!
Howard
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 69transamman writes:
| | Going thru some unsorted parts and I found the 32553 in dark bluish gray with
the 32554 in trans dark blue that was missing from the catalog. I have uploaded
the picture as a counterpart (32553c06) to set 8610-1.
Howard
|
And this was the last one that needed to be approved:
* | | 32553c06 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Dark Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
Thank you very much for your assistance in providing pictures so that we could
get all these entries created!
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: 32553c06 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 69transamman writes:
| | Going thru some unsorted parts and I found the 32553 in dark bluish gray with
the 32554 in trans dark blue that was missing from the catalog. I have uploaded
the picture as a counterpart (32553c06) to set 8610-1.
Howard
|
And this was the last one that needed to be approved:
* | | 32553c06 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Dark Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
Thank you very much for your assistance in providing pictures so that we could
get all these entries created!
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 20:00 | | Subject: | 32553c06 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Going thru some unsorted parts and I found the 32553 in dark bluish gray with
the 32554 in trans dark blue that was missing from the catalog. I have uploaded
the picture as a counterpart (32553c06) to set 8610-1.
Howard
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 11:19 | | Subject: | Re: name change not in log 3068bpb0139 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
For this part, sellers might want to see a change log to know that the listing
has become more specific and they will need to check the part before shipping
to verify which pattern it is.
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: name change not in log 3068bpb0139 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | I recently submitted a name change, it was rejected, no problem, but the name
needed to be changed and it was, but I don't see any record in the logs regarding
this very recent name change that added 'and 4 Wear Marks'?
[p=3068bpb0139]
|
Not everything is logged here you have details:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=519&q=not+in+log
There is whole paragraph of things which are logged
Item name change made by Catalog Administrators directly is not logged.
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 10:13 | | Subject: | name change not in log 3068bpb0139 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I recently submitted a name change, it was rejected, no problem, but the name
needed to be changed and it was, but I don't see any record in the logs regarding
this very recent name change that added 'and 4 Wear Marks'?
[p=3068bpb0139]
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: 92586 White Dog, Alsatian / German Shepherd | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, myixjetjet24 writes:
| | Where did it come from? I cannot find any set containing this.
|
Probably the factory.
I know that sounds snide, but I mean some people can get testshots and stuff
from the factory that weren't produced for sale.
|
... and that escaped the printing process.
is of course the unprinted variety of
I bought mine in 2016 from TakeABrick (https://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=TakeAbricK&itemID=135212983)
- which if I remember well, was a chance find at the time.
Hans-Peter
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: 92586 White Dog, Alsatian / German Shepherd | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, myixjetjet24 writes:
| | Where did it come from? I cannot find any set containing this.
|
Probably the factory.
I know that sounds snide, but I mean some people can get testshots and stuff
from the factory that weren't produced for sale.
|
| Author: | myixjetjet24 | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | 92586 White Dog, Alsatian / German Shepherd | | Viewed: | 140 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| | Where did it come from? I cannot find any set containing this. |
| Author: | M.Boss | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2020 13:51 | | Subject: | Republic Fighter Tank 7679 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I bought used contained in black instead of in black.
I believe this part came with the set but do not want to make a catalog request
without conformation.
If someone else owns this set, can they check if their set contains this part
and then add it as an alternate item?
|
|
| Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2020 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Alternate Images (Rant) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, waltzking writes:
| | Would seem appropriate to contact the member directly, or set up a notice when status on the request is changed, especially after a month of no action on it and the request that
additional action by that member is to be taken.
|
This is a fair point and I will take it into consideration in the future. I
apologize that I didn't directly contact you.
|
Appreciate the understanding....wasn't directed at you specifically, but
the general way things work around here of late.
| |
| | But of course that is just one of the many notices that members really would
benefit from but never get
|
I agree with this also, but setting up a notification system is well beyond the
purview of CAs/IAs and requires action from the site's side. I simply don't
have time to individually notify 700,000+ people of changes because to do so
I would have to send exactly that many PMs. There is no system in place for
mass-notification, even though members have asked for it for a long time.
|
Not to contradict, but BrickLink has everyone's registered emails, so how
hard is it to send an update to those? Granted I don't have a million users
to notify, but even a novice website owner can do that, it's typically built
into any domain control panel, or at least the option to activate it is there.
Plus there are services out there for mailing lists too, and could easily be
used if the BL server can't handle it. And then what about the LEGO user
agreement pop-up we all saw a few months ago? Why not use that function again
for a pop-up that we all should hear about? Guess I just don't see how excuses
are valid given this is the internet with a million way to stay in contact.
Probably not your department, but someone behind the scenes surely can do it
as it has been done before.
| |
| | Please appropriately respect and value the user.
|
I have always tried to do that and I appreciate knowing where I fail.
|
Again not you, but the collective "site powers" failing to take actions to keep
all in the loop. Just a request we "all" get the respect of a notice, not the
few digging around in the forum.
|
|
| Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2020 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: Alternate Images | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, waltzking writes:
I think you have here mistake on your second photo
I think you ment
|
Yeah, we caught that and corrected when uploading the images the second round.
But thanks for the note!
Jonathan
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2020 09:06 | | Subject: | Re: Factory glued version of 6014ac01 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, elias3 writes:
Sorry, I forgot. I'll ask the admins to add notes to those parts.
/Jan
|
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 19:26 | | Subject: | Factory glued version of 6014ac01 | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I've found glued versions of in at least two different lots
of bricks that contained no other glued bricks. Can anyone confirm if these ever
came factory glued like other wheel assemblies have?
(See also: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1132833 )
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 16:16 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I had a few minutes to play with my photo software and decided to add color names
to the photo showing the 8 colors of 32554 that I posted previously. If you would
like to swap if for the original, I'm okay with that.
Howard
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, 69transamman writes:
| | On a lark, I have posted a picture showing of 8 of the 9 colors (Missing the
Trans Dark Blue) for part #32554 .
Howard
|
I have added that image as an additional image. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 69transamman writes:
| | I looked into which sets contained a 32553 in White and found that 2
of them come in set #6620-1 along with 2 of the 32554 in
Trans Neon Orange. As it is only possible to connect these 2 pieces to each other
(In regards to the pieces contained in this set.) Should a combination of these
2 pieces be added as a counterpart to this set as a 32553c04?
Howard
|
According to numerous sources, the inventory for
was completely random, so the inventory for that set will probably be removed
in the near future. It is on my list to get to. Requests to add counterparts
to this set will not be accepted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I looked into which sets contained a 32553 in White and found that 2
of them come in set #6620-1 along with 2 of the 32554 in
Trans Neon Orange. As it is only possible to connect these 2 pieces to each other
(In regards to the pieces contained in this set.) Should a combination of these
2 pieces be added as a counterpart to this set as a 32553c04?
Howard
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If anyone has pictures of the last four heads, please submit them to the catalog
so that we can complete this group of catalog entries. Thank you.
|
This one looks like three different colors of trans-blue for the brain stalk:
* | | 32553c05 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Medium Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
The light gray one and red one have a trans-medium blue "brain". The white one
for that part definitely has a trans-light blue "brain". That image needs to
be removed.
|
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I was following up on this thread and read that an image for 32554c05 in White
had the wrong image and needed removal. I looked an it had been removed so, I
retrieved my copy of that part and have uploaded a picture with the correct color
parts. I'm not sure if the original image was one that I uploaded or if it
had been uploaded by someone else. I apologize for the mistake if it were mine.
Howard
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If anyone has pictures of the last four heads, please submit them to the catalog
so that we can complete this group of catalog entries. Thank you.
|
This one looks like three different colors of trans-blue for the brain stalk:
* | | 32553c05 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Medium Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
The light gray one and red one have a trans-medium blue "brain". The white one
for that part definitely has a trans-light blue "brain". That image needs to
be removed.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | myixjetjet24 | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 06:52 | | Subject: | Re: Falcon Shields LEGO markings | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, myixjetjet24 writes:
| | I bought 10+ pcs of 3846pb31 Minifigure, Shield Triangular with Black and Silver
Falcon Pattern from 2 different sellers. Seller1 has LEGO markings at the back
of all his shields, while Seller2's shields have none.
I checked it and it came from 1 set only. Question is, why some have LEGO markings
while others have none? Are those legit LEGO?
|
I checked the shields from my own set and they don't have markings on them.
I guess they started using a new mold with markings for shields that were included
in later production runs.
|
I see, thanks for verifying. I also checked it side by side and I did not see
any red flag for the no marking shield.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 22, 2020 01:45 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If anyone has pictures of the last four heads, please submit them to the catalog
so that we can complete this group of catalog entries. Thank you.
|
This one looks like three different colors of trans-blue for the brain stalk:
* | | 32553c05 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Medium Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
The light gray one and red one have a trans-medium blue "brain". The white one
for that part definitely has a trans-light blue "brain". That image needs to
be removed.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2020 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Head Pictures | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If anyone has pictures of the last four heads, please submit them to the catalog
so that we can complete this group of catalog entries. Thank you.
|
This one looks like three different colors of trans-blue for the brain stalk:
* | | 32553c05 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Medium Blue Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Missouri
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Quebec
Netherlands, Noord-Brabant
United Kingdom, England
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
)
)
Portugal
Switzerland, Vaud
Italy, Lombardia
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Denmark
Belgium, Oost-Vlaanderen
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Germany, Sachsen