BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.

Can somebody show me the difference between:

93587 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

and

38224 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved Fenders
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

I'm looking at the renders of these two parts in yellow and I don't see
any difference.

I looked at the two BL pics (official Lego renders?): I believe there’s a difference
around the stud hole (red circles) and, maybe at the top of the fender (orange
circles).

BUT 93587 at on top of 38224 on my comparison pic, so it’s the opposite of the
description (93587 is rounder).

I looked on Brickset, the images are the same but a bit bigger and placed the
same way, so going back and forth from one image to the other is possible and
shows the same differences PLUS 38224 seems a bit higher (the bottom of the parts
are at the same place but the studs aren’t).

That might help you find the differences on the real parts, if they exist because
renders….

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 19, 2018 17:13

Subject:

Re: What is the difference?

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.

Can somebody show me the difference between:

93587 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

and

38224 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved Fenders
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

I'm looking at the renders of these two parts in yellow and I don't see
any difference.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 19, 2018 10:02

Subject:

Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why??

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Searching, BuildZone writes:

In Searching, SylvainLS writes:

In Searching, BuildZone writes:

[…]
Ok, thank you very much for the explanation. But actually writing in the titles
"Marked for Deletion" should be allowed only for Admin. But that's just my
opinion.

StormChaser IS admin.

Sorry I didn't see he's an Admin. I didn't mean it that way.

Sorry too, I put it a bit rudely… maybe should have added a smiley or something

So if
marking for deletion is allowed only for Admin that's ok so. I thought that
everybody can mark it like that. Thank you all very much for your help and explanation,
I really appreciate it.

Anybody can ask whatever but only admins can accept or decline requests. Otherwise,
it would be a fine mess

So, if something was done, it was obligatory done by an admin. And admins usually
don’t do anything stupid.

The catalogue has some inconsistencies but they are worked upon. And, without
discrediting the other admins, StormChaser is cleaning tornado.

As you can see with these minifigs, a lot have been marked for deletion without
anyone doing anything about them (like sellers keeping selling them while they
shouldn’t). Just putting that big mark should (and already has) wake(n) them
up.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 19, 2018 09:00

Subject:

Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why??

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Searching, BuildZone writes:

[…]
Ok, thank you very much for the explanation. But actually writing in the titles
"Marked for Deletion" should be allowed only for Admin. But that's just my
opinion.

StormChaser IS admin.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 15, 2018 07:04

Subject:

Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this?

Viewed:

79 times

Topic:

In Catalog, brox999 writes:

[…]
[3930c01] is in many new sets

Not.
The hinge brick and the hinge plate always came separated.

and I need
the ability to add this part to my store inventory in a new state […]

This assembly can’t be New: you have assembled the parts yourself, that’s the
definition of Used.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 15:40

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).

It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.

I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.

Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:23

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

[…]

It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.

Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.

Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)

However, that actually would require data and some real coding.

Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.

At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.

Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).

Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:48

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

The Years Released data for parts and sets only refers to the year they were
FIRST released, not all the years they were produced and available in stores.

The old Death Star 10188 only has 2008 as its Year, even though it was produced
for many years after that.

Is that what you are asking?

Jen

Thank you, but I still find it confusing. Because the base plate 48x48 gray is
indicated as "Years Released: 1980 - 2016".

I would interpret this as a "final" production year (which is wrong), Similar
for 3811 (at least saying 1978-2018).

A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 15:29

Subject:

Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Selling, StormChaser writes:

[…]
Until I get around to addressing this issue, part assemblies are kind of up
in the air.

This one seems more 6 ft under than up in the air.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 14:52

Subject:

Re: Q about (Other) Minifigures Have Moved!

Viewed:

27 times

Topic: