Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 22:27 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Guidelines: Minifig Heads | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I would like to suggest the following catalog guidelines for minifig head
|
Is it too much to ask that we keep this all in one thread where I can easily
reference it? I don't mind reposting everyone's replies to the original
thread and I can go on doing it as long as need be, but it is taking time away
from approving new catalog entries which I was working on.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 20:23 | | Subject: | New Part Category | | Viewed: | 135 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Today I added a new category: Wheel, Accessory.
I moved 31 parts from Wheel to the new category.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 06:36 | | Subject: | Re: Part 35442 and 35449 name - flower or gear? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | If you look at how these parts are used, then they are actually gear wheels.
Should the name not be "Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Gear Tooth"?
|
Sure, why not. It was an easy fix. Some people in the future might not realize
they're gears and think they're flower petals, so now the titles include
both terms.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:22 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
Everything else is good.
Just to be clear, the fact that figures were incorrectly added to the catalog
was no one's fault other than my own. My job is to check things and I did
not check these things.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:06 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | More bad news. I just checked Lego's website for instructions and it appears
that Genji (dual-sword holder?) and Hanzo (quiver) are missing these neckgear
in their pictures here.
Also, Genji appears to have a piece that connects to his helmet.
|
Now I'm beginning to be embarrassed by my incompetence. I've fixed them:
I've also contacted anyone who has the four affected figures for sale and
alerted them of the issue. Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | The picture for this fig is wrong.
|
I'm confused. The figure doesn't have a picture.
Only kidding. I removed the images just now. How and why did these images get
approved?
Well, the catalog (me) is trying to be more responsive than it has in the past.
That means more and better communication with members, quicker item approvals,
and no more long queues of pending items. One of the casualties of pumping out
catalog entries is that some get in which are wrong.
I have to put some trust in members that items are submitted properly, especially
for new figures for which the assembly instructions are not always immediately
available. Sometimes that trust is repaid and sometimes it ain't. I have
a decent memory and submissions from the member who submitted these entries will
be checked carefully in the future.
It's a messier method in some ways, but I believe the benefits to members
outweigh making sure a catalog entry is absolutely perfect in every way before
approval. That's what change requests are for. This is not to say that
I don't check and occasionally reject things, of course. I'm just not
going to hold catalog entries forever, especially not desirable new items which
can easily be corrected. The inventory administrators, as Randy said, also sometimes
catch errors during the inventory process.
Having said all that, it was my fault that I approved these images/figures when
they were incorrect and I apologize for the error. I believe the instructions
were already available when I approved those figures with those images and I
neglected to download and check the set instructions regarding the correct assembly.
As you've noticed, the images are gone now.
| | This one is up to the admins. The 1st assembly shown in instructions is the
standard w/ legs. I think this version is a good addition to the catalog, but
it may not fit the catalog policies.
|
There's kinda only one CA for now, and it's me. If the figure does not
match the assembly first shown in the set instructions, then it's off to
deleteland for that figure, which is where this figure has travelled.
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
And I seem to remember a certain person telling me that it didn't matter
if parts appeared in the N/A color. 
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yoavheskia writes:
| | i counted only 51 known colors, not 52 as mentioned in catalog statisics.
|
That is odd. I cannot explain it. I thought the statistics were real-time data.
Even if not, I don't see any recent changes which could have caused this
discrepancy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Just thinking
it's smarter to fix the problem now before another gazillion images get posted
and end up in the wrong slot and then need to be "fixed".
|
Agreed and thank you for bringing it up. It could be human error since I approved
some of the images you mention. I'm sure Russell will shed some light on
the issue.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | you are credited with the large image.
|
| | and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
|
Oops. Other way around. Confusing, as I said, even to me.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.
|
Russell would indeed be the person to answer this, but in many cases it comes
down to the way the system is designed. On this, for example:
The legacy image is from hazelsden. The color image is from you. The color
image is shown as the primary image, which is why you are credited with the large
image. The legacy image also exists, which is why it is shown as an additional
image and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.
| | And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
Those I cannot explain.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 21:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| An anonymous person would like the following information added for review:
The additional note for
[s=yoda-1]
is too bloated since most of that information is included in the help page for
the "Cannot be Inventoried" flag. I suggest simplifying it to just "This set
is a glued model." or getting rid of the note entirely and adding "(Glued Model)"
to the set name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional note for
is unnecessary since the set name includes "polybag" and the set relationships
includes the other set. I suggest removing the note entirely.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: 2 versions of dino tail end #40379 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | There are two versions of this part where the small hole by the base varies
in location, mirrored left or right side.
|
If you'll post a comparison picture, then I'll add an additional note
to the part mentioning the difference and also add this part to our list of known
variants.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | So open mouth is ... mad face?
Weird ... ok then.
|
I did not title this figure. The person who titled the figure was a person who
had the figure in hand to see what the face actually looks like. Titles can
easily be changed and if you feel that the current title does not accurately
describe the figure, then please request a title change using this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | Not sure what needs to happen but ... that minifig should be changed.
|
These are pending and have been for some time:
[M=sw986]
[M=sw987]
[M=sw988]
What needs to happen is that someone needs to upload pictures so the figures
can be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9397-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 32523pb12 White Technic, Liftarm 1 x 3 Thick with 'UW 9397' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb012 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing Center (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb011 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing End (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Hello, friends. My name is Robert (which is a pseudonym) and I approved these catalog entries as a catalog administrator. Before I approved them I verified their existence with the set instructions.
"But, Robert," I hear you saying, "How the heckfire can we know that you didn't make an error? We've noticed that you're prone to them, you know."
Oh, so that's how it is? You want to be that way? Fine, then, go and look for yourselves. You can find the white liftarm being stickered and added on page 32 of the set instructions (the 1st of three instructions books).
The black liftarms are part of the crane assembly and they are added in the third book on page 41. Now I'm off to do something different, but don't think I won't be watching like a hawk to make sure these change requests are approved or whatever.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: 93273pb089 deletion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, phyllisw8 writes:
| | I just added a more complete and correct entry of this part as 93273pb090. 93273pb089
is currently pending approval and should either be deleted or my submitted information
from 93273pb090 be transferred to the entry.
|
I've changed your post to the Catalog topic since the Catalog Requests topic
is for me to change something in the catalog. This pending part is not yet in
the catalog.
As for correcting it, you're definitely right - it does need plenty of correcting
before it can be approved. I will get to it eventually. 
Since the other member submitted the catalog entry first, I'll probably approve
that submission after correction and remove your pending submission.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2018 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: Parts not showing on set inventory pages? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Help, normivey writes:
| | Parts that are identified as being part of a set from the parts page did not show up
in the set's inventory page.
|
Those parts appear in the inventories of figures. You can click the Break Minifigs
button at the top of an inventory page to have all the figure parts appear along
with the other items in the inventory if desired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2018 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve 30529-1 (In Hand) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand and would like to see it approved soon.
|
We have no image for this item and it will not be approved without an image.
Please upload an image.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 05:11 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
This is not a new policy, by the way. It has been around for a long time:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1022961
For the sets you mention, some will be available on the LEGO shop website tomorrow
and I'll get them approved either very late today or very early tomorrow.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | According to the newsletter of a Dutch webshop the following new sets are now
available. Please approve them.
|
Many or all of those sets have been available for a while in varying locales.
Nevertheless, we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 21:16 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | All packs were pre-made and identical with the same accessories. There was a
square display at the register filled with many of them; I did not get a count,
but lots!
And they were packaged in the same packaging used for the build-a-fig bar, so
there was no unique set number.
|
Submit the set it as a catalog entry, please. I see no problem with approving
it and its figures as catalog entries. Make up a set number and I'll modify
as necessary. Include any further notes you can in the comments section about
the availability dates, if it was available at any other locations, if it was
advertised in any way, the cost and/or circumstances for purchasing (free with
purchase?), etc.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
