|
 |
| | | Author: | simmony96  | | Posted: | May 1, 2021 08:48 | | Subject: | Deleting set entry 4959 | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Already Exists | |
|
| This is gonna take some explaining. Set 4959 is described as being a duplicate
set of the 4950 Loader Dozer. The only reference that ever exists of this anywhere
is from this catalogue, page 9:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99am
Comparing to literally every other catalogue from the same time, they have the
correct set number 4950 instead:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk2
This single catalogue page is treated as evidence for this set intending to be
produced: However it is fairly obvious when you think about it that 4959 is just
a typo of 4950, as 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and 4959 has
never ever been referenced outside of this fact. The promotional images match
set 4950 too. If there's an alternate set number with differences, such as
extra gear, it should clearly say so in the catalogue.
Therefore: Would you mind simply marking set 4959 for deletion? It doesn't
appear in searches, but it appears as an alternate when you visit page 4950 or
when you check what sets e.g. the Rock Monster figure was in, both which misrepresents
the Bricklink database.
I'm aware that basically every large Lego database still has a page up for
set 4959 and I'm going up against those too, but I don't think anyone
has ever cared enough about this detail enough to ask them to take down the pages
or declare that the set simply never existed. If anyone has any evidence of this
set ever existing they are welcome to provide it, or another American catalogue
containing Rock Raiders but with the correct set number 4950 would work to support
the typo theory too.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | May 1, 2021 16:00 | | Subject: | Re: Deleting set entry 4959 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, simmony96 writes:
| | This is gonna take some explaining. Set 4959 is described as being a duplicate
set of the 4950 Loader Dozer. The only reference that ever exists of this anywhere
is from this catalogue, page 9:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99am
Comparing to literally every other catalogue from the same time, they have the
correct set number 4950 instead:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk2
This single catalogue page is treated as evidence for this set intending to be
produced: However it is fairly obvious when you think about it that 4959 is just
a typo of 4950, as 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and 4959 has
never ever been referenced outside of this fact. The promotional images match
set 4950 too. If there's an alternate set number with differences, such as
extra gear, it should clearly say so in the catalogue.
Therefore: Would you mind simply marking set 4959 for deletion? It doesn't
appear in searches, but it appears as an alternate when you visit page 4950 or
when you check what sets e.g. the Rock Monster figure was in, both which misrepresents
the Bricklink database.
I'm aware that basically every large Lego database still has a page up for
set 4959 and I'm going up against those too, but I don't think anyone
has ever cared enough about this detail enough to ask them to take down the pages
or declare that the set simply never existed. If anyone has any evidence of this
set ever existing they are welcome to provide it, or another American catalogue
containing Rock Raiders but with the correct set number 4950 would work to support
the typo theory too.
|
Thanks for the detailed info.
It doesn't show in searches as its on the unreleased items list here (none
of which show in catalog searches)
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?itemStatus=N
You will only see it referenced elsewhere in the catalog as a link from set 4950.
So it won't be deleted from the catalog altogether but thanks for bringing
it up.
Paul.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | simmony96 | | Posted: | May 30, 2021 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Deleting set entry 4959 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, simmony96 writes:
| | This is gonna take some explaining. Set 4959 is described as being a duplicate
set of the 4950 Loader Dozer. The only reference that ever exists of this anywhere
is from this catalogue, page 9:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99am
Comparing to literally every other catalogue from the same time, they have the
correct set number 4950 instead:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk2
This single catalogue page is treated as evidence for this set intending to be
produced: However it is fairly obvious when you think about it that 4959 is just
a typo of 4950, as 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and 4959 has
never ever been referenced outside of this fact. The promotional images match
set 4950 too. If there's an alternate set number with differences, such as
extra gear, it should clearly say so in the catalogue.
Therefore: Would you mind simply marking set 4959 for deletion? It doesn't
appear in searches, but it appears as an alternate when you visit page 4950 or
when you check what sets e.g. the Rock Monster figure was in, both which misrepresents
the Bricklink database.
I'm aware that basically every large Lego database still has a page up for
set 4959 and I'm going up against those too, but I don't think anyone
has ever cared enough about this detail enough to ask them to take down the pages
or declare that the set simply never existed. If anyone has any evidence of this
set ever existing they are welcome to provide it, or another American catalogue
containing Rock Raiders but with the correct set number 4950 would work to support
the typo theory too.
|
Thanks for the detailed info.
It doesn't show in searches as its on the unreleased items list here (none
of which show in catalog searches)
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?itemStatus=N
You will only see it referenced elsewhere in the catalog as a link from set 4950.
So it won't be deleted from the catalog altogether but thanks for bringing
it up.
Paul.
|
Sorry for a late reply, I don't think I was clear enough: Yes it doesn't
show up in searches nor the Rock Raiders theme category, but it shows up in the
linked catalog pages for all parts that are in the set, such as:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30305c01&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?M=rck001&in=S
Set 4959 should be removed from every part and minifig that is present in the
inventory, shouldn't it? If this is not possible at the moment, maybe put
in a feature request to mark sets as "Unreleased" so they don't show up on
part appearance pages?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 31, 2021 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Deleting set entry 4959 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, simmony96 writes:
| | This is gonna take some explaining. Set 4959 is described as being a duplicate
set of the 4950 Loader Dozer. The only reference that ever exists of this anywhere
is from this catalogue, page 9:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99am
Comparing to literally every other catalogue from the same time, they have the
correct set number 4950 instead:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk2
This single catalogue page is treated as evidence for this set intending to be
produced: However it is fairly obvious when you think about it that 4959 is just
a typo of 4950, as 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and 4959 has
never ever been referenced outside of this fact. The promotional images match
set 4950 too. If there's an alternate set number with differences, such as
extra gear, it should clearly say so in the catalogue.
Therefore: Would you mind simply marking set 4959 for deletion? It doesn't
appear in searches, but it appears as an alternate when you visit page 4950 or
when you check what sets e.g. the Rock Monster figure was in, both which misrepresents
the Bricklink database.
I'm aware that basically every large Lego database still has a page up for
set 4959 and I'm going up against those too, but I don't think anyone
has ever cared enough about this detail enough to ask them to take down the pages
or declare that the set simply never existed. If anyone has any evidence of this
set ever existing they are welcome to provide it, or another American catalogue
containing Rock Raiders but with the correct set number 4950 would work to support
the typo theory too.
|
Thanks for the detailed info.
It doesn't show in searches as its on the unreleased items list here (none
of which show in catalog searches)
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?itemStatus=N
You will only see it referenced elsewhere in the catalog as a link from set 4950.
So it won't be deleted from the catalog altogether but thanks for bringing
it up.
|
As it seems only a typo in 1 catalog, shouldn't it be added an alternate
number and a note to the 4950 entry?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 2, 2021 06:09 | | Subject: | Re: Deleting set entry 4959 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, simmony96 writes:
| | This is gonna take some explaining. Set 4959 is described as being a duplicate
set of the 4950 Loader Dozer. The only reference that ever exists of this anywhere
is from this catalogue, page 9:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99am
Comparing to literally every other catalogue from the same time, they have the
correct set number 4950 instead:
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk
https://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=catalogues/c99uk2
This single catalogue page is treated as evidence for this set intending to be
produced: However it is fairly obvious when you think about it that 4959 is just
a typo of 4950, as 9 and 0 are next to each other on the keyboard and 4959 has
never ever been referenced outside of this fact. The promotional images match
set 4950 too. If there's an alternate set number with differences, such as
extra gear, it should clearly say so in the catalogue.
Therefore: Would you mind simply marking set 4959 for deletion? It doesn't
appear in searches, but it appears as an alternate when you visit page 4950 or
when you check what sets e.g. the Rock Monster figure was in, both which misrepresents
the Bricklink database.
I'm aware that basically every large Lego database still has a page up for
set 4959 and I'm going up against those too, but I don't think anyone
has ever cared enough about this detail enough to ask them to take down the pages
or declare that the set simply never existed. If anyone has any evidence of this
set ever existing they are welcome to provide it, or another American catalogue
containing Rock Raiders but with the correct set number 4950 would work to support
the typo theory too.
|
Also, all other sets from the same wave end in 0:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweden, Stockholm
United Kingdom, England
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
