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 ' '
|
|
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