In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
We prefer to use the old x numbers as the primary number, even after an original
LEGO number is discovered.
It might not always be that way, but we have chosen to not discard this part
of the BrickLink legacy at this time. Even though these part numbers were "made
up" by someone who was not working within the LEGO system, they have been
exposed for years as the main ID for the part and as such they are a valid form
of identification.
In fact, their conciseness and easy recognition makes them more useful from BrickLink
standards than the typical 5 digit official part number.
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
We prefer to use the old x numbers as the primary number, even after an original
LEGO number is discovered.
It might not always be that way, but we have chosen to not discard this part
of the BrickLink legacy at this time. Even though these part numbers were "made
up" by someone who was not working within the LEGO system, they have been
exposed for years as the main ID for the part and as such they are a valid form
of identification.
In fact, their conciseness and easy recognition makes them more useful from BrickLink
standards than the typical 5 digit official part number.
Since the BL item numbers are the only way to identify an item, in our own administration
we use these IDs in historic info as well. Our software identifies items that
have historic records but no longer point to primary IDs in the BL catalog which
breaks the sales and inventory history (no worries, these ID checks all happen
completely off-line, there is not a single web or API request to determine broken
references).
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
We prefer to use the old x numbers as the primary number, even after an original
LEGO number is discovered.
It might not always be that way, but we have chosen to not discard this part
of the BrickLink legacy at this time. Even though these part numbers were "made
up" by someone who was not working within the LEGO system, they have been
exposed for years as the main ID for the part and as such they are a valid form
of identification.
In fact, their conciseness and easy recognition makes them more useful from BrickLink
standards than the typical 5 digit official part number.
This creates a problem, for any lots I have which happen to be one where the
BL catalog ID is changed (as mentioned here). My inventory is stored (some/much
of it) in physical bags, in tubs of various sizes. In each physical bag is a
small square piece of paper, with both the catalog ID and the color written on
it. That assists me in locating the correct lot when filling an order (and also
when consolidating new parts from sets).
If the catalog ID of a lot changed behind my back that means that the
next order needing me to pull that lot, I will be unable to match it to the physical
tag. In many cases, I recognize the description and figure it out anyway, but
not always. And I always double check the order printout against the tag to make
sure I'm pulling the correct lot.
The remarks field does not really help me, other than it gets me to the correct
tub/drawer/container.
I believe I made mention (sometime in the not to distant past) that it would
be really helpful, if each seller received a notification, when something they
have a physical lot listing has a change in the catalog. This could be a catalog
ID change, a name change, or a merge with another catalog entry (which happened
a few times over the past year). Something that gives the seller a heads up,
so they can keep their physical inventory in-sync with catalog changes. Right
now, there is nothing that pings the seller about these events.
[…]
I believe I made mention (sometime in the not to distant past) that it would
be really helpful, if each seller received a notification, when something they
have a physical lot listing has a change in the catalog. This could be a catalog
ID change, a name change, or a merge with another catalog entry (which happened
a few times over the past year). Something that gives the seller a heads up,
so they can keep their physical inventory in-sync with catalog changes. Right
now, there is nothing that pings the seller about these events.
Well, apparently, they can’t warn the Studio team who’s sitting in the next room
🤷♂️
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
We prefer to use the old x numbers as the primary number, even after an original
LEGO number is discovered.
It might not always be that way, but we have chosen to not discard this part
of the BrickLink legacy at this time. Even though these part numbers were "made
up" by someone who was not working within the LEGO system, they have been
exposed for years as the main ID for the part and as such they are a valid form
of identification.
In fact, their conciseness and easy recognition makes them more useful from BrickLink
standards than the typical 5 digit official part number.
Whilst I see nothing wrong with keeping the X numbers (the more references the
better) but do they really need to appear in the primary spot?
Also you mention it might not always be that way but if not changed now, then
when? The longer a reference number remains in the primary spot the more familiar
and reliant people become to using that reference be that for labelling their
stock/storage etc... at which point it only gets harder and harder to ever change
things?
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
Wouldn’t it make sense to forget about the ‘x’ designations as it has been years
since the changes? When do we draw the line?
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
Wouldn’t it make sense to forget about the ‘x’ designations as it has been years
since the changes? When do we draw the line?
Forget? You mean like a Catalog change log purge?
I'm not sure it ever happened; it's interesting to know this part was
renamed 15 years ago. Especially for softwares like BrickStore which automatically
can rename parts when you open a 15 years old file (I did, it works).
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
Wouldn’t it make sense to forget about the ‘x’ designations as it has been years
since the changes? When do we draw the line?
Forget? You mean like a Catalog change log purge?
I'm not sure it ever happened; it's interesting to know this part was
renamed 15 years ago. Especially for softwares like BrickStore which automatically
can rename parts when you open a 15 years old file (I did, it works).
No. I’m referring to the parts switched from ‘x’ designations to official part
numbers. Does it make sense to switch them back to the ‘x’ item numbers when
most new users know them by their official part numbers? How long does it have
to be?
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
Wouldn’t it make sense to forget about the ‘x’ designations as it has been years
since the changes?
If it was my database, yes. But since it isn't, no.
When do we draw the line?
I think Russell clearly spelled out where the line is.
In 2022, this part was changed from x136 to 32294. There are quite a few items
that show these changes. Was 32294 not the correct item number? It sure looks
like a proper one instead of the made-up "x" number.
Niek.
A couple of years ago, I unfortunately allowed some numbers to be switched. A
few months after that, I found out that I shouldn't have allowed that, so
I went and switched back the ones I could remember at that time. Unfortunately,
I couldn't remember all of them, so an occasional one gets reverted back
to its original 'x' number when I stumble upon it.
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Thanks to Russell for explaining the reason why the original 'x'
numbers are still preferred.
Wouldn’t it make sense to forget about the ‘x’ designations as it has been years
since the changes? When do we draw the line?
My thoughts exactly since those that understand and are familiar with those X
numbers have probably been around the Lego arena long enough to know and navigate
the system to find what they need anyway regardless of the Official Design ID
being used in the primary spot. The system ought to focus on making things easier
for current and new users that will be more familiar with the official references?
Canada, Alberta
USA, California
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
