Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | LordSkylark  | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | There is a new variant for
that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.
It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149
The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.
POLL:
What would you like to see done?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Cheers,
Randy
|
Can we work on getting some designated A/B entries for some of the parts that
haven't had any for years (or have one variant designated but not the other)
of which there are actually functional differences?
|
 |
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 6, 2020 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Dual molded arms | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
I've always thought it should be reversed, as most arms base would be either
yellow or flesh, therefore limiting the amount of catelog entries drastically.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2020 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
"x" exists as a temporary number when the official Lego part number was originally
not known (usually because it is not printed on the part itself).
When I've discovered the true part number, I've submitted many for the
"x" number to be replaced by the official Lego part number, and it's always
been done. (The "x" number was not even retained as an alternate.) In fact, one
time I went through the catelog to discover and replace as many as I could find
the original part number for.
For some reason here though... When the original part number was discovered,
it was added as an alternate number, but not replaced. So, there's obviously
serious inconsistency here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2020 23:48 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, edeevo writes:
| | […]
I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... […]
|
Nah, items have a fixed, internal ID in the database, that ID doesn’t change.
The part ID is just another description, shorter and unique.
Think about when they add a digit to the numbered minifigs (bla001 becoming bla0001).
|
Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?
Should it be renamed?
|
It has been renamed.
|
Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 10, 2020 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2020 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: Disassembling Bionicle | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Thanks in advance for assistance. And then probably after, too.
|
Thank you all for your input. I genuinely appreciate it. The responses were
more than I expected in both quantity and quality. You've all been extremely
helpful.
* | | 32553c01 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Green Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
Thank you very much! Even with a custom made tool, my hands hurt after removing
them... especially when I used to get them in sometimes by the dozens at a time...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2019 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, tEoS writes:
| | I like the idea of adding and inventorying these boxes (especially the ones w/o
a peek hole), though I wish it could have been done years ago. Still, as they
say, better late than never.
| | Wow, people will throw an instant tirade about any new idea we try out. It is
no wonder that the corporate BrickLink employees and developers don't want
to try anything new, either. Everything that is tried receives just whinging
and moaning from the user base. I think I now have a good idea about what drove
Jaclyn away from the site.
In any case, we have heard all of the feedback and will be reversing course on
the inventories. We had planned to make an announcement in a few days concerning
this to ask for feedback on what had been done, but we wanted stuff in place
for users to look at. So this thread was not a complete loss to us, but you did
jump the gun on us, Jonas.
Please bear with us as we work out the kinks.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
I've glad that they not have catalog entries of their own.
The only way it will work in actually set inventories, is if there is a way to
part down parts in sets easily. If so, I think it would be good.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2019 13:05 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out. 
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
Isn't there a better way to reword these types of entries?
"Complete Random Set of 1 Minifigure"
This wording still seems confusing. Even if "Complete Set of 1 Random Minifigure"
it would make more sense. But I would think using "complete" makes it confusing
for the most part.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:36 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I know you are working within the "no new development" constraints, but if you
could get a few minutes of dev time, this could be better solved with a dynamic
append to the display name based on the "appears in" reference. So the set
number(s) is never in the actual description text. This solves the issues of
maintaining changes if the same figure already in the database is reused later,
or some correction to the association is made.
Minifigure Name [In Set 1000-1]
Minifigure Name [In Multiple Sets]
A user option could be enabled for "Show Minifigure Set References". Search
results could add another tab that shows "Results Contain Figures", so searching
"Set 1000" would show me that set, and all of the contents of that set.
You could actually take this a step further and enable the dynamic append for
all objects -- animals, parts assemblies, the proposed sub-sets function,
etc. This would be extremely useful for printed torsos, decorated tiles, and
other generally unique parts.
-Jason
|
I think this is one of the better suggestions on this topic.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
If it were my own database and I was doing it for myself, I do not think I would
include set numbers in the title. However, if it does help people out, I cannot
think of any harm that it would do to have the extra information and it might
help some people find a figure better in certain cases. I was also thinking,
when there are, say, 50 differet Luke Skywalker figures (I didn't actually
do any sort of count, so I don't know the actual number) how is someone to
know the difference between 5 different Luke Hoths without the set numbering
helping with the identification. It would seem in those cases that that would
really help distinguish the entries better. So, because it seems that it would
help others, I would for making that consistence, as long as the figure probably
appears in 3 or less sets.
Andrew
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 01:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| |
Brown
Why was this deleted? The brown appears in two sets.
|
It was deleted because I wasn't paying enough attention. I've double
checked every single image before I deleted it, but this one slipped by me.
|
Which is strangely good that I checked it, because it's one of the only ones
I checked.
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
Why was this deleted? The brown appears in two sets.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | A new catalog project has begun:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As you can see, the (Other) project is now complete and LordSkylark's project
is temporarily on hold.
The fifth catalog project is to remove images which are renders and which show
parts which do not exist in the colors shown. There are estimated to be 1,600
of these renders left in the catalog and there is no easy way for me to locate
them.
I would imagine the majority of them are for basic, undecorated parts. Please
post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors. I will review the findings and remove the renders where
appropriate. Please note that this project will not be removing any actual
photos of parts.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
So basically at this stage, if a part does not appear in an actual set, then
bricklink wants an actual physical photo to verify that it does in fact exist?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
Here's some images.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, dearlydeparted writes:
| | I think this is a bad call, that complete assembly is necessary, but just my
2 cents, others may disagree. And absolutely not looking forward to wasting
the time to "undo" and reenter years worth of inventory.
"Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel - Complete Assembly - (MARKED FOR DELETION)
Item No: 3830c01
This item was marked for deletion because it sets a precedent for adding dozens
of unnecessary combinations of hinges as assemblies to the catalog."
|
I understand the reason for the deletion of this part. But since it has been
in the catalog for a very very long time, and many people do use this listing,
I would be in favor in keeping in around for the sake of others, even though
I myself do not use it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 10:54 | | Subject: | Key chain inventorying? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I think I forgot about posting this in my previous list...
What about inventorying key chains and magnets that normally do not come apart?
There are some rare parts that are ONLY included in these and it would be good
to know how to get certain parts.
Andrew
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2018 21:32 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'd say go with a Skeleton & Ghost category, but retain the numbering system
with "Gen" (at least for now). Because many of these span multiple series, I
cannot see a better way to do it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 3, 2018 00:21 | | Subject: | Re: Quattro Leg? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | Hi
I saw this on Amazon Prime, and I was instantly curious as to what the name really
means
Why is this packaged as a McDonalds set, and it has nothing to do with Quattro?
Maybe this is an item that needs to be 'sorted out'?
Regards,
Paul
|
I wonder if "Quattro" by chance has the same name as the theme.
Either way - the offical set name given by Lego's Part's and Replacement
site is "Greedy"
Is the "Quattro" name on the bag or listed anywhere else? If not, we should change
it to the official name, I would think.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 2, 2018 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
I am very patient, but I do get ill-tempered when I see that reasonable, valuable
member feedback is dismissed or ignored (I am not accusing you of this!) I understand
that these changes are aimed at improving the buyer experience but please also
put yourself in the shoes of sellers with thousands of lots and hundreds of thousands
of parts who are packing orders every day: imagine dealing with a diaspora where
100+ items suddenly move to 100 different categories and information about their
former home is difficult to find (how many members know how to find the change
log and would they even think to look there?)
|
Being one of those large sellers... It will not disrupt anything on this end
in the slightest, as I categorize my parts in my inventory myself and I know
where almost every part is just by image alone.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
| | Spike - move to Minifigure, Utensil
|
I would move this into the same category as all of the other barbs/claws/horns
for consistency.
|
I second this. That is the box I have mine in for inventory.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Michigan
)
)
