Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | SylvainLS  | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2019 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated tiles | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, legoworld.nl writes:
| | Hello.
What is the difference between
|
and
?
None that I can see….
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2019 17:50 | | Subject: | Re: Please change "Coral" to "Vibrant Coral" | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, calebfishn writes:
| | […]
I don't know how the word "vibrant" modifies
"coral" in any meaningful way, (not like, "dark" or "Medium")
if there are not multiple shares of coral, (which I am pretty sure is a shade
of pink or red) then there is no value in adding a modifier just to be consistent
with Lego's conventions.
|
Coral is orange, not pink or red.
And “vibrant” means “flashy” as in “Wow, these 1980’s skiing outfits are really
‘vibrant’!” 
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 8, 2018 06:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7722-1 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | […]
Sylvain, are you sure my motor is still new? 
|
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I meant to say it was debattable, with a “New” argument
(screwing isn’t clicking) but starting with a “Used” arguments (opening isn’t
sorting).
I didn’t actually give my own opinion: it’s Used! 
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Brown vs reddish brown cape | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, normann1974 writes:
| | […]
So what do you say? Are they still considered to be the same color although they
seem not to be?
|
Er, now they look aubergine (egg plant / dark purple), not (reddish) brown.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SezaR writes:
| | […]
It has been sometime I am thinking about this one:
Does opening the screws (located on the top) and removing the motor housing in
order to check the production date make this old motors used? (these motors were
not sealed in any way, so opening the motor is very easy: one only need to open
the screws)
|
Well, the definition says New should have been manipulated for sorting only.
Opening isn’t sorting… unless you sort by production date
Now, it’s about screws, not clicking plastic parts, so it’s less “Used” than,
say, removing arms from a torso, but some may see it as “Used” nonetheless.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
 Haha that's crazy, seems the person making the instructions made the mistake.
I guess Bricklink follows the instructions and not the box, so probably it should
stay like this then... Although unless dad has a job as a hairdresser or fashion
designer I do think he looks a bit off with that kids/teenage haircut
|
Well, we’re assuming it’s a “dad”. It could be a “big brother” or a “young uncle”
too
And anyone can change the interpretation (and minifigs) to better represent their
own situation.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 06:56 | | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| |
LOL, so the Christmas giftset 40292 has a male and a female hairpiece so that
the child can be a boy or a girl (and they're both on the box). But someone
uploaded a picture where the alternate hair is put on the DAD's head, kind
of making it a dad's hairdo optionality feature
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1
|
Actually, it IS a “dad’s hairdo optionality feature”: there are two versions
of the instructions and each one uses different hair for the dad.
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1117220
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 23:22 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
Chronogical order and something like “discontinued,” or more simply the era /
production years next to the title.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I suggest you usability test this proposal. Calling the section "Figures."
[…]
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figures".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
|
This question is flawed.
You should add things that are clearly not figures, like cars or houses, and
things on the line, like Cars (the movie) characters.
As you’re proposing it, you’re showing only things that could be construed as
“figures,” so people will try to find some that wouldn’t be.
The other questions don’t show that flaw as you’re trying to subcategorize figures
and show (what you expect to be) different subcategories on each page.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6591-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 3 Part 4073 Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Clear Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Green Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 6 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 4 Part 4073c01 Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Clear Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Green Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 6 Part 4073c01 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=244915
|
As there are two plates on each sprue, the numbers should be halved.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | […]
I never found part 4073 in a set on a Sprue.
|
4073 always came by pair on a sprue in the 1980’s.
| | It appears you don't have any sealed sets of your own, but you are just copying
images from website (which actually is forbidden). Why delete part 4073 and add
these on a sprue?
My guess is that about 95% of all sets have these plates in it. Are you going
to add change requests for all sets.
I noticed there are some good changes concerning inventories, but this really
is going to far. I'm sure that I'm not the only one with this opinion?!
|
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1116969
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 06:33 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 71043-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 60601pb017 Trans-Clear Glass for Window 1 x 2 x 2 with Arched Gold Window Pattern (Extra)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Trans-Yellow 3024 Plate 1 x 1 (Extra)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Trans-Clear 3024 Plate 1 x 1 (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
New sealed set.
The 2 extra glasses were in the first batch (20 instead of 18).
In compensation, I only got 2 extra trans-green plate 1x1 instead of 4.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: What is the difference? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | [… A very fine mess indeed …]
|
And… that’s why admins are paid the big bucks and, my not having either of the
parts, why I can now go to sleep with a clear conscience 
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: What is the difference? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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:
and
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: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.
Can somebody show me the difference between:
and
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).
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why?? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
Turns out that I can see those X's and faded-yellow backgrounds because of
my Administrative privileges now. I really think those additions should be added
for everyone. I will see if I can bump this suggestion up the chain.
|
Perks of the position
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2018 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Try that again | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | - Not swure thie is correct in the catalogue. In all 3 sets that
it comes in there is an white rubber band which holds the two halves
together. The instructions show the rubber band being used in each case. Should
there be an inventory for the part?
|
As currently set up in the catalogue 29112pb01 is for 1 piece i.e. half of the
assembly
|
Maybe add a simple line in the picture to show it’s both sides of the same part
and not two parts.
| | and the band is just another separate part. For an assembly the inventory
would need to be 2 x 29112pb01 plus one band but typically assemblies like this
are not catalogued.
|
It would need a pin too
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 5, 2018 09:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6445-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | […]
oops, this shows how careful you must be, almost missed it How there is in
sealed bag part with sticker applied? Bags were reseald evidently.
|
Soon, there’ll be deepfakes videos of LEGO sealed sets opening
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
