|
 |
| | | Author: | chetzler  | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 17:03 | | Subject: | Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 127 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| The following part has two separate entries distinguished by a difference in
the pin hole.
This part below displays the same type of variation but it only has a note rather
than a separate, distinct entry.
Is this because no one has submitted the newer variant, or is there some sort
of arcane cataloging reason of which I am not aware?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| It might be a difference in part usage within sets. The double pin has been
used specifically for blasters on SW vehicles (for instance), so bar insertion
is a necessary function of that part.
In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | The following part has two separate entries distinguished by a difference in
the pin hole.
This part below displays the same type of variation but it only has a note rather
than a separate, distinct entry.
Is this because no one has submitted the newer variant, or is there some sort
of arcane cataloging reason of which I am not aware?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | It might be a difference in part usage within sets. The double pin has been
used specifically for blasters on SW vehicles (for instance), so bar insertion
is a necessary function of that part.
|
That thought crossed my mind because I have encountered that exact problem with
that part. But builders might also want to insert a bar into the other part
as well, so it seems like it’s important that they should be able to know what
they’re getting.
It still feels like the catalog should be consistent regardless of functionality.
I’m guessing it really is just a matter of someone submitting the part, but
I’m not going to spend any time on that unless I know it will be accepted.
| |
In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | The following part has two separate entries distinguished by a difference in
the pin hole.
This part below displays the same type of variation but it only has a note rather
than a separate, distinct entry.
Is this because no one has submitted the newer variant, or is there some sort
of arcane cataloging reason of which I am not aware?
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 18:44 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | It might be a difference in part usage within sets. The double pin has been
used specifically for blasters on SW vehicles (for instance), so bar insertion
is a necessary function of that part.
|
That thought crossed my mind because I have encountered that exact problem with
that part. But builders might also want to insert a bar into the other part
as well, so it seems like it’s important that they should be able to know what
they’re getting.
It still feels like the catalog should be consistent regardless of functionality.
I’m guessing it really is just a matter of someone submitting the part, but
I’m not going to spend any time on that unless I know it will be accepted.
|
If you can find a specific use case in a set where the part with the round pin
hole is used for bar insertion and the new part will not work for the specific
set model, please let us know. In that case, we would split the part immediately
to get it worked out. If you can't find one, though, then it will remain
in the large lot of unsplit part variants:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 20:57 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | It might be a difference in part usage within sets. The double pin has been
used specifically for blasters on SW vehicles (for instance), so bar insertion
is a necessary function of that part.
|
That thought crossed my mind because I have encountered that exact problem with
that part. But builders might also want to insert a bar into the other part
as well, so it seems like it’s important that they should be able to know what
they’re getting.
It still feels like the catalog should be consistent regardless of functionality.
I’m guessing it really is just a matter of someone submitting the part, but
I’m not going to spend any time on that unless I know it will be accepted.
|
If you can find a specific use case in a set where the part with the round pin
hole is used for bar insertion and the new part will not work for the specific
set model, please let us know. In that case, we would split the part immediately
to get it worked out. If you can't find one, though, then it will remain
in the large lot of unsplit part variants:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
|
Why? Why does it matter whether or not LEGO treats it as a functional difference?
The part has a clear functional distinction that may help or hinder builders.
In addition, it also has a bottom stud holder unlike its variant. It seems
like it would be more important to distinguish parts like these verses the myriad
grooved hinge and tile entries where the differences are merely cosmetic:
[P=54657]
[p=44302a]
[P=44302b]
That's just one example of the many slight variations in hinges. Did they
all require an example of how LEGO exploits one of the variances?
-------------------------
Also consider these parts:
I'm not arguing against the above parts having separate entries, it's
just that they exhibit a less important distinction. They can all interface with
other system parts in the exact same ways whereas the original part in question
and its variant cannot.
------------------------
These parts also have separate entries. Has LEGO utilized the bottom stud holder
in that variant?
--------------------------
Additionally, I can confirm there is a different part number molded inside (44865)
and a different design ID (6321770 in LBG). This is in contrast to 2458 and
4211364 in LBG.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2022 23:03 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | It might be a difference in part usage within sets. The double pin has been
used specifically for blasters on SW vehicles (for instance), so bar insertion
is a necessary function of that part.
|
That thought crossed my mind because I have encountered that exact problem with
that part. But builders might also want to insert a bar into the other part
as well, so it seems like it’s important that they should be able to know what
they’re getting.
It still feels like the catalog should be consistent regardless of functionality.
I’m guessing it really is just a matter of someone submitting the part, but
I’m not going to spend any time on that unless I know it will be accepted.
|
If you can find a specific use case in a set where the part with the round pin
hole is used for bar insertion and the new part will not work for the specific
set model, please let us know. In that case, we would split the part immediately
to get it worked out. If you can't find one, though, then it will remain
in the large lot of unsplit part variants:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
|
Why? Why does it matter whether or not LEGO treats it as a functional difference?
The part has a clear functional distinction that may help or hinder builders.
In addition, it also has a bottom stud holder unlike its variant. It seems
like it would be more important to distinguish parts like these verses the myriad
grooved hinge and tile entries where the differences are merely cosmetic:
[P=54657]
[p=44302a]
[P=44302b]
That's just one example of the many slight variations in hinges. Did they
all require an example of how LEGO exploits one of the variances?
-------------------------
Also consider these parts:
I'm not arguing against the above parts having separate entries, it's
just that they exhibit a less important distinction. They can all interface with
other system parts in the exact same ways whereas the original part in question
and its variant cannot.
------------------------
These parts also have separate entries. Has LEGO utilized the bottom stud holder
in that variant?
--------------------------
Additionally, I can confirm there is a different part number molded inside (44865)
and a different design ID (6321770 in LBG). This is in contrast to 2458 and
4211364 in LBG.
|
I totally hear you, and I get what you are saying. All of these things have to
do with how different admins handled different situations at different times,
unfortunately. That is why former admin Robert (StormChaser) was so keen on getting
things documented. It is because we all do things differently and based on how
much bandwidth we have at the time to deal with them.
In the case of the hinges, one admin at the time thought it was important to
separate them. All of the admins debated the need for it, but it was decided
in the end that it was okay because the admin that wanted it was going to do
all of the work to make it happen. Thus, it happened.
I assume the 1x2 - 1x4 brackets were split by a prior admin because at that time
things were being changed from squared corners to rounded corners on a number
of parts and they felt it was important to distinguish them. I wouldn't have,
but I wasn't there to help make the decision. Now things that have corners
changed are given entries right away to stay consistent with history.
In the case of the last ones, the new mold was given a separate entry due to
the history of parts having bottoms changed like this being given separate entries.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, different decisions for every one of them because of different admins
at different times. We continue some immediate additions due to the history of
other parts, but new ones have to be weighed against the time we have to figure
things out.
At this time, we are absolutely swamped with new things being released from LEGO
so we aren't going to do any new splits unless they are absolutely required.
I would definitely like to see all of the parts that had the pin holes changed
get new entries, but we are only prioritizing ones that are needed for specific
set builds right now. This doesn't mean we won't ever get to the others.
Thanks for your patience and understanding.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Shiny_Stuff | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2022 00:47 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2022 06:01 | | Subject: | Re: Squared vs Round pin hole | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | The following part has two separate entries distinguished by a difference in
the pin hole.
This part below displays the same type of variation but it only has a note rather
than a separate, distinct entry.
Is this because no one has submitted the newer variant, or is there some sort
of arcane cataloging reason of which I am not aware?
|
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=309651
2458 old version didn't fit a bar either.
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Minnesota
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana