Discussion Forum: Thread 316137

 Author: jethroo View Messages Posted By jethroo
 Posted: Jan 23, 2022 05:26
 Subject: Question regarding 30394 Alternate 21709
 Viewed: 54 times
 Topic: Catalog Requests
 For:Catalog Associate
 Status:Open
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
BrickLink
ID Card

jethroo (1617)

Location:  Germany, Brandenburg
Member Since Contact Type Status
Jun 29, 2011 Contact Member Seller
Buying Privileges - OKSelling Privileges - OK
Store: sum-of-its-parts
For me the 21709 is the lower bucket also having different teeth (like 2 gaps).

Since we already have different entries for hinges reflecting different teeth
styles wouldn't it be also recommended to split the
 
Part No: 30394  Name: Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
* 
30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle
into 2 separate
entries?

Furthermore the 21709 is the lower bucket whereas all my 30394 are the taller
ones. (Maybe someone can confirm this as well)

Best

Carsten
 


 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Nov 20, 2023 11:39
 Subject: Re: Question regarding 30394 Alternate 21709
 Viewed: 24 times
 Topic: Catalog Requests
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
BrickLink
ID Card

StormChaser (566)

Location:  USA, Oklahoma
Member Since Contact Type Status
Sep 10, 2002 Contact Member Seller
Buying Privileges - OKSelling Privileges - OK
Store Closed Store: Penultimate Harbinger
In Catalog Requests, jethroo writes:
  Since we already have different entries for hinges reflecting different teeth
styles wouldn't it be also recommended to split the
 
Part No: 30394  Name: Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
* 
30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle
into 2 separate
entries?

It's been almost two years for this request with no response from a catalog
expert. The part is on the unsplit variant list, an additional note has been
added, and a comparison image is present.

Clearly the decision was made to not split the part. Therefore, since the differences
are documented now, there is no reason for this request to remain in open status.

I encourage the catalog experts to close this request.