Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
That makes sense to me, but it would set a new standard. Probably in line with
what BL would want for XP, but not how it is classically done.
Specifically which type of relationship can we currently choose?
The relation between plain parts and their multicolored, stickered or printed
versions on Bricklink is currently an implied relation only, by means of the
part number. There should be a new relation type defined for this relation type.
Is this in reach of the current catalog admin? And then to systematically set
the relation between each patterned part and it's base part.
62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
I wonder why we don't do this already. In most instances they are the same,
but sometimes they are not. I guess it is probably cases like this where the
LEGO Group uses two different part numbers for what is essentially an identical
part, but for the sake of catalog consistency, it would make sense to use the
official LEGO Part ID for all parts with a suffix (a, b, c, etc.) to distinguish
between different variants.
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
I am in favor of renaming the newer one (or maybe both) in a way that designates
that one is taller and one is longer.
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
I am in favor of renaming the newer one (or maybe both) in a way that designates
that one is taller and one is longer.
David
Aren't they different materials? If memory serves the marbled one is a lot
less ridgid that the solid.
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
I am in favor of renaming the newer one (or maybe both) in a way that designates
that one is taller and one is longer.
David
Aren't they different materials? If memory serves the marbled one is a lot
less ridgid that the solid.
I don't have the Ant-Man Final Battle set, so I can't say.
Well I'm going to eat my words here, but I have a defense, I think I was
thinking of the spiders, I'm so sorry for my confidence when I was clearly
wrong.
I pulled out both ants, I have them in hand and they are indeed identical mold.
Well I'm going to eat my words here, but I have a defense, I think I was
thinking of the spiders, I'm so sorry for my confidence when I was clearly
wrong.
Ah, it's okay. We all make mistakes.
I pulled out both ants, I have them in hand and they are indeed identical mold.
I would be willing to bet that somewhere on those two parts there is a tiny difference.
I can't think of any instance at the moment where a new item number was
assigned by TLG without there being some kind of difference. Here it may just
be the marbling, though.
Either way, I removed the relationship match because it would be prohibited for
parts that only have a difference in color or pattern. I also added 23714pb01
as an alternate item number for the newer part.
Well I'm going to eat my words here, but I have a defense, I think I was
thinking of the spiders, I'm so sorry for my confidence when I was clearly
wrong.
Ah, it's okay. We all make mistakes.
I pulled out both ants, I have them in hand and they are indeed identical mold.
I would be willing to bet that somewhere on those two parts there is a tiny difference.
I can't think of any instance at the moment where a new item number was
assigned by TLG without there being some kind of difference. Here it may just
be the marbling, though.
Either way, I removed the relationship match because it would be prohibited for
parts that only have a difference in color or pattern. I also added 23714pb01
as an alternate item number for the newer part.
Well I'm going to eat my words here, but I have a defense, I think I was
thinking of the spiders, I'm so sorry for my confidence when I was clearly
wrong.
Ah, it's okay. We all make mistakes.
I pulled out both ants, I have them in hand and they are indeed identical mold.
I would be willing to bet that somewhere on those two parts there is a tiny difference.
I can't think of any instance at the moment where a new item number was
assigned by TLG without there being some kind of difference. Here it may just
be the marbling, though.
Either way, I removed the relationship match because it would be prohibited for
parts that only have a difference in color or pattern. I also added 23714pb01
as an alternate item number for the newer part.
I guess I should have finished my thoughts before hitting "Post".
Basically, I would just keep the original ant numbered 62575pb01 with *no* alternate
item number, keep the new ant numbered 23714 with *no* alternate item number,
and reinstate the relationship between them.
[…]
I would be willing to bet that somewhere on those two parts there is a tiny difference.
I can't think of any instance at the moment where a new item number was
assigned by TLG without there being some kind of difference. Here it may just
be the marbling, though. […]
Netherlands, Groningen
USA
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana