Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 04:26 | | Subject: | Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| When new parts are added to the catalogue and these parts have only a catalogue
weight, please do not default the item to weight bound for packaging type. Just
as IC is not possible if the item does not have a weight entered for the catalogue,
it should be just as impossible for IC if the volume is patently a problem.
This seems to be the only workaround at this time to make the inventory search
function for "Instant Checkout Unavailable" useful.
Case in point this part, which do not appear on that list even though all of
the information to determine whether or not IC should be applied, is not provided:
* |  | 67138 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Bottom Curved 6 x 24 x 1 1/3 with 4 x 21 Recessed Center and 12 x 6 Wings, 20 Holes
Parts: Aircraft |
This part qualifies for IC, will fit my requirements for medium letter by weight,
but is in fact a small packet due to its height, the cost difference is 250%.
The argument that IC is useful enough without being too precise is not valid
if BL do not give sellers the reporting tools required. Setting defaults with
the potential of causing sellers financial loss, without giving sellers the opportunity
to address the issue on listing the item, is not useful.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
snip
| | | | | |
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
|
Well the same is true for Plate,Round, but it was more a general comment on the
trend to move things with some studs missing from the smaller Tile categories
to the bigger Plate categories. Tile, Round is quite small.
|
My idea is that such a part with a few studs missing is a plate and not a tile.
Moving a thing from a category because it is in the wrong category, is in my
head not the same as worrying about the size of a category.
| |
| |
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
|
|
snip
| |
But you're advocating Modified should take priority over Round in the case
of that Tile
|
I'm not advocating anything, I am requesting a consideration for something,
as opposed to your statement that one thing takes precedence over another.
| | but at the same time you're suggesting those Round+Modified
Tiles to be moved to Plate,Round - which should, by the same logic, then be Plate,Modified.
|
Ive not dealt with plate, round yet, only tile round. If it needs to move or
if I think another is change is to be requested inside the entire category, I'll
do so. I'm also trying to keep my comments grouped in categories to avoid
jumping all over the place. One thing at a time and one place at a time.
Of course that tile is modified, it is how we deal with the modification. If
you look closely at what remains after stripping put plates and bars, then this
is the only part in the entire tile round category with some attachment. Catmins
must consider if it is worth it to have a definition made such that its verbosity
includes one part only or if that part is better suited somewhere else to make
an easier category and easier definition.
| |
I guess we could change things around to make Modified take priority over Round,
to solve the issue you describe, although then the Modified categories will become
even bigger. It will also mean that anything in Brick,Round that isn't standard,
such as domes, rocket fins, bricks with holes, all end up in Brick,Modified.
|
Again, it is dependent on how catmins stress test the definitions. It can only
mean something if the definition fits. Those definitions are not tested or experimented
on yet, so we cannot know if what is being done here is correct. This is why
it is under consideration - for catmins to decide if the definition needs fine
tuning or if the part needs to move.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 09:55 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Animal Air | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'm going to try my hand at the figure definitions.
I don't think animals with two uses, one as a part and one as a figure, should
get defined based on the manner in which it is used in a set. Thus, I do not
think:
should be a figure in some sets and a part in others, but if the figure
definition takes precedence over the part definition, then of course some would
have dual functions.
I'm still not happy with that sentient idea and how it should be applied,
but lets see:
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Ant-thony
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Smaug
* | | buckbeakc02 (Inv) Hippogriff with Dark Bluish Gray Wings, with Beak, Dark Bluish Gray and White Feathers, and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern (HP Buckbeak)
Parts: Animal, Air |
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki
Minecraft animals
All of these to figures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Please consider to Plate Round:
|
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
| | - if this
would be a Tile,Modified instead of a Tile,Round, then there are many Plate,Rounds
tha should be Plate,Modifieds as well. In fact, there are some of them right
there in your suggestion to move to Plate,Round.
|
I don't understand what you mean here. The plate round fits as those are
all have studs (a stud being a stud whether it is hollow, solid, blocked...).
The tile modified is suggested to make the tile round category smaller and to
get away from the definition where you have a modified category for some items
and for other items it is modified only once you get to the definition, it is
not apparent from the name of the category. Plate, round suffers the same indignity.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider to Plate Round:
and to Bar:
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:50 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Modified | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider to category Bar:
* | | 98549 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Hollow Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
* | | 30256 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Solid Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
and
To category plate, round or plate, modified
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:44 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.
Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting. 
|
could this part be moved to tile modified as well?
Just for consistency
Regards
Christian
novabrick-team
|
That whole class needs cleaning up, so that all plates / tiles with missing /
extra studs are in the same place ...
Plus all the jumpers and so on.
|
I thought they were all going to plate, modified.
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 08:31 | | Subject: | Add no of orders to quote detail page please | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Please add a line for "Orders in this store" to the quote page. I cannot remember
the user name of every buyer so I will miss return buyers and quote incorrectly,
leading to acceptance and costly financial transactions to refund discount monies
which should never have been paid. Sometimes buyers forget they have coupons
or to ask for the coupon or coupons expire in which case I have to add those
discounts manually on quote. It is a bit difficult to quote correctly if not
all of the information is available.
TIA
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Animal Accessories | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| From: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1213913
Please consider the following:
Category: Animal Accessories:
Move to cloth:
* | | 58321 Belville Horse Blanket, Cloth Non-Opening, with White Glitter Stars Pattern
Parts: Belville |
Move to Cone
Move to Minifigure, Headgear
Move to Vehicle, Base:
33202pb*
Leashes:
Not sure if must move to Belville or if and
must move to Animal, Accessory.
Bridles:
Move to Animal, Accessory so as to have all bridles under one
category, also because is already in category Animal, Accessory
Change the definition of Animal Accessory to exclude blankets.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Responses | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
Wing and Tail - move all to Aircraft
Response: Agree. There are only 35 parts in the two combined categories
and they are nearly all aircraft parts. BUT, we have the Tail, Decorated category
containing 327 parts. These would all need to be moved to Aircraft, Decorated
and that's a lot of movement. Not sure on this many changes.
|
Alternative is to move all of the parts with fins to tail:
Change the definition of Tail to:
For bricks, tiles and wedges modified by a fin/fins that are the rear section
of aircraft, including rockets.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Help Animals & Accessories ??? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| A few questions please.
The cloth and foam parts are problematic. Can you state what the catalogue preference
is please: Does a part get categorised by its function first or what it is made
of first? And publish the rule in the help page as it would be of some help (try
to get away from those unwritten rules while you are at it. Actually make a help
page with all the unwritten rules as well (that's easy for you - it is blank))
in avoiding confusion. We might even get away from categories such as foam and
cloth altogether if it can be done consistently or if there is a stated catalogue
preference.
Figures.
Are you looking to move figures as well, where they meet the definition?
For example Piggy bank accessories and Hamm figures:
Name, face, can apparently speak, which other normal piggy banks cannot do so
it must be aware that it is different somehow. So then it becomes a figure and
the accessory parts moves to minifig accessories and cones?
Do you want to test each item against the definition of character first and then
go to parts classification or vice versa? See for instance:
which: have a name, a face, and probably display some form of
sentient behaviour beyond that of a normal flying animal type thingie. Does all
three of the qualifiers (name, face, sentient behaviour) have to be equally met
in deciding if Hamm is an animal,land with accessories or is the qualifier more
weighted to having name for instance? Having clearer guidelines might make it
easier and avoid long discussions on single parts or single figures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 03:26 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | | | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
* | | 3957pb01 Antenna 4H with Flag with Blue, Red and Green Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3108
Parts: Antenna |
* | | 3957pb02 Antenna 4H with Flag with Yellow, Pink and Blue Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3159
Parts: Antenna |
|
|
|
| | The first two parts are antennas with stickers attached. That's it.
|
Eek, should have checked the flag is a sticker and not a modification of the
antenna with a sticker attached. Ignore for those two parts please.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 02:50 | | Subject: | Re: Avoid orders from buyers with 0 fedback | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, fobya71 writes:
snip
| |
I think it would be great to have a function to avoid orders from people with
0feedback
|
You can do one of two things:
1. Send them to me; or
2.Set yourself up for Instant Checkout, then go here
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/mystore/management.page
Tick on that seller protection button there - it will prevent all those pesky
new buyers irritating you. In fact, they all have to irritate 5 other sellers
first. Seller number 6 apparently gets buyers, not irritation.
| | or at least having the possibility to approve or deny the order before
it became a registered order.
|
Its called acknowledging an order - this is why you can cancel orders without
the buyer's permission. You just say I do not want this order and you cancel
it, easy.
| | It is quite frustrating to cancel orders after
some days and then restock everythink...
|
You want to blame the buyer for a thing you are doing. The buyer does not tell
you to pick the LEGO, or worse still, pack and ship it already, the buyer just
tells you he wants some LEGO goodies subject to your:
1. Accepting the order; and
2. Providing an affordable shipping option
and subject to the buyer paying or making some acceptable payment arrangement
for you. What are you doing picking and packing LEGO when you do not have an
order with no strings attached yet?
And there is another nifty solution - enable quotes, those work nice. I suppose
it will irritate you to complete those as well, but at least then you can ignore
them.
I would still help them if you don't want to, so voted no.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Aircraft, Tail and Wing | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Please combine under Aircraft, Tail and Wing under one entry for Aircraft;
Please delete the definition for Wing (since it already an "item used on a flying
vehicle");
Please delete the definition for Tail (since not everything with a fin is under
tail anyway and need not be there either);
Please keep the current definition of Aircraft.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Category Defs suggestions, Pt 1, Antenna, Ball | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Regarding: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1200979
Hello all!
I have spent a fair bit of time going over the currently published category definitions
in order to clarify the text and create consistency within the contents of each
category. This is just the start, and I welcome help in refining or trouble-shooting
any new language.
I am hoping very much that this can be a free and open discussion. I am not advocating
for any particular changes, and I won’t be the person who decides what happens.
(So please don’t yell at me!) I would simply like to support the volunteer admins
work towards improving our excellent catalog.
I reviewed only some common Part categories. I have not looked far into minifigs,
Bionicle, Duplo, or technic as of yet. Where I have indicated a ‘larger discussion
needed’ I will post an individual thread later with my ideas.
Thanks,
Jen
|
Hi Jen
I hope you do not mind me piggybacking on your posts as you've done a better
job than me; mine was written telegram style, so I've canned them and will
add to yours and will add a few more as time allows. I'm hoping the catmins
will sort these somehow for easier reference.
Personally, I think the Duplo categories are a right royal mess as they are not
consistent with the main catalogue, but I would prefer a Duplo expert to try
and make head or tail of sorting those categories and the individual parts in
them. I'm not a Duplo expert so I'll try not to interfere with Duplo
at all.
Ta
Jean
| |
Here is the list of categories where I see inconsistencies related to their current
definitions. I have indicated solutions when one seemed obvious to me.
-------------------------------------------------
Antenna - For items resembling masts or structures used to receive or broadcast
radio and television signals.
Issue: There are currently flags in this category
|
* | | 3957pb01 Antenna 4H with Flag with Blue, Red and Green Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3108
Parts: Antenna |
* | | 3957pb02 Antenna 4H with Flag with Yellow, Pink and Blue Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3159
Parts: Antenna |
Parts 30322pb*
(this is not a packing dimension adjustment, don't expect macro tags on everything )
Those parts should all be moved to flags, as they fit the definition of a flag:
"For cloths intended for attachment to a pole and molded flag and pole assemblies.
" the antenna performing the function of a pole. It can of course be said that
flag is incidental to the antenna part and that the antenna is the actual part
under consideration. I've tried to find fixed flag assemblies for ham radio's
and other broadcasting services, but they all appear to be used as a flag pole
once the flag is attached. In South Africa, no matter what pole you use for the
flag, it can only be hoisted in daylight hours and you must use a flag pole only
as a flag pole (the flag being this holy thing apparently). My preference would
be for the flag parts to move to flags and to keep the definition as is.
| |
---------------------------------------------------------
Ball - For freely-rolling spherical objects without modifications.
Issue: Part x12 does not fit definition
|
I'm not clear on the retention of the Belville, Hero Factory, Scala, etc
specific categories for parts. The feeling I got was that these types of series
specific parts will be retained under the category name, so this part should
move to Belville or Scala.
But:
x45pb*
54821pb*
would probably be better served under ball, except maybe for
to stay under the Foam category.
snip
More later
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Make A List | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Can we get a forum topic for this please, so replies are sorted together for
reference purposes?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As announced in mid-April, today the item type and category definitions were
updated.
Two months from now, on August 1st, we'd like to (which doesn't mean
for a certainty that we will) simultaneously launch a couple of projects from
the roadmap as follows:
1. Clarification of Item Types and Moving Items - A project to clearly define
what constitutes sets, parts, minifigures, books, gear, and catalogs. Once clear
definitions exist, some (and potentially many) items may need to be changed from
one type to another to comply with definitions.
7. Part Reclassifications - A project to revisit certain difficult-to-define
parts and determine if they would fit better in different categories.
During the coming two months, please make a list of the items you feel are miscategorized,
whether by item type or by category. As you make your list or lists, refer to
the new definitions to see where they support or fail to support your position
and be prepared to offer suggestions for improvements to the definitions.
I've no doubt that the discussion that occurs will also involve categories
themselves, so be prepared with a list of specific categories that you feel should
be removed altogether, categories that should be renamed, and new categories
that are needed.
In the interim, there is no need to reply to this message.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2020 00:25 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | There is a new variant for
that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.
It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149
The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.
POLL:
What would you like to see done?
|
I would prefer separate entries to be able to buy the old variant if I would
need it to complete an older set. The axle holes also remind me of
and
and these parts have their own entries. And the difference is clearly visible
so it should not bee too difficult to separate them.
|
+1
In addition, I do not like mixing variants with a visual difference, so I would
prefer to buy them separate.
| |
----------------
+1 for the idea to ask the community about this.
|
Yes +1
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 03:13 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | | | Items Pending Official Release:
Items may not be listed prior to their official LEGO release date, either
as custom lots or under related catalog entries.
|
Then the policy wording is incorrect.
Those retailers did not get their inventory off the back of a truck;
TLG officially sold the stock to those retailers;
TLG made it available for general release, not the retailers;
TLG is not taking any steps to prevent those items from being sold to consumers;
Those retailers are not selling fake goods;
Those retailers are selling the goods with the blessing of TLG;
TLG most probably added a preview for such sets long before, and officially made
images, set numbers and descriptions available for the broader consumer market
some time before the retailers had them for sale.
So should the policy not read as follows:
Items may not be listed for sale by BrickLink stores prior to the first date
that such items are being offered for sale on lego.com and/or certified LEGO
stores.
|
Not everything is sold through official LEGO outlets. There are many exclusive
items that do not have a public release date. We are working on aligning the
catalog with official release data, but we're not quite there yet.
However, that does not mean there is not an official release date for every LEGO
item. And we are not the only site that abides by these rules. All registered
fan media, including sites that get sets early to do reviews, are under strict
embargo agreements, and they may lose their registered status if they break an
agreement. So BrickLink, as the LEGO Group's own fan site, needs to set the
example with this. Don't compare us with Amazon, Walmart, or any other major
retailer. We have a leadership role to play within the context of the AFOL community.
|
I'm not comparing BrickLink to those retailers.
What I am trying to get across to BrickLink is that those retailers have released
the sets for sale to the general public with the official blessing of TLG, else
it would not be for sale at all. TLG is the largest toy maker in the world, they
can and do control the market for their own product. There is not a single retailer
in the world that can get inventory of a LEGO product from a wholesaler for resale
to the general public without TLG's blessing.
If the embargo BL is operating under precludes a listing in the BL catalogue
and a for sale listing by a seller registered on the BL platform (supposedly
independent of control by TLG) until such time as TLG approves of it, then the
rules should say so. The current policy merely states that LEGO must have released
the item. My point is they did, else it would not be for sale at all anywhere.
| |
| | There should also be a definite catalogue policy as follows:
TLG might make set descriptions, set numbers, images, set contents and box
images available some time prior to offering such items for sale on lego.com
or at certified LEGO stores. Catalogue entries will not be accepted until the
first day such items actually become for sale to the general public on those
platforms.
|
Actually, it is stricter than that. If information about a set has not been released
by the LEGO Group for publication, such information may not be entered into a
publicly viewable pending entry until the information is officially released.
Such pending entries are subject to immediate removal.
|
As I suggested - TLG makes it available...
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand. Any chance we can get it approved for the catalog now?
Thanks!
Jonathan
|
It will be approved to the catalog on its official release date of August 1.
|
This seems quite backwards given it is on Amazon, Walmart, and eBay...BrickLink
is only shooting the site visibility in the foot to not follow major retails
early release on this kit.
Jonathan
|
BrickLink has always followed the official release dates of The LEGO Group for
adding new sets, new minifigures, and new parts to the catalog regardless of
what is happening anywhere else. Before the site was owned by TLG, this was done
out of a sign of respect for the company and helped to solidify a solid relationship
between BrickLink and TLG. Now that the site *is* owned by TLG, I am quite sure
that this process will not change.
|
You are correct, Randy. We are currently working on a way, in fact, to make sure
that every item is released exactly on time, not early, not late. In fact, we
now have a rule about this in the Seller Terms of Service:
Items Pending Official Release:
Items may not be listed prior to their official LEGO release date, either
as custom lots or under related catalog entries.
|
Then the policy wording is incorrect.
Those retailers did not get their inventory off the back of a truck;
TLG officially sold the stock to those retailers;
TLG made it available for general release, not the retailers;
TLG is not taking any steps to prevent those items from being sold to consumers;
Those retailers are not selling fake goods;
Those retailers are selling the goods with the blessing of TLG;
TLG most probably added a preview for such sets long before, and officially made
images, set numbers and descriptions available for the broader consumer market
some time before the retailers had them for sale.
So should the policy not read as follows:
Items may not be listed for sale by BrickLink stores prior to the first date
that such items are being offered for sale on lego.com and/or certified LEGO
stores.
There should also be a definite catalogue policy as follows:
TLG might make set descriptions, set numbers, images, set contents and box
images available some time prior to offering such items for sale on lego.com
or at certified LEGO stores. Catalogue entries will not be accepted until the
first day such items actually become for sale to the general public on those
platforms.
And yes, I've had a few of these so-called pre-release items in my time and
I've had some of them approved for catalogue entries and inventory purposes
in the past by a simple request for approval. I was never aware of this rule
until 2018 when I had a request rejected after having a set in hand specifically
purchased to add the inventory of the set for the BL catalogue.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Some of the best buyers I've had the privilege of welcoming in my store have
been zero/low feedback users. So while I understand the rationale for this and
of course it being elective, I personally think that all users have to start
somewhere, so it is maybe not in the best interest of stores to needlessly limit
the buying experience.
Laws are not the same everywhere, so I guess we are fortunate that no order is
legally binding until I as the seller have acknowledged it. If I am really uncomfortable
with the buyer or what he/she is ordering, I reserve the right to cancel the
order, demand the buyer use a shipping method with insurance and tracking or
to demand another form of payment. If the buyer cannot agree, that is a red flag
and it will strengthen my reasons for cancelling.
For fraudulent chargebacks, use the NPB process and negative feedback, else such
buyers just get a free pass to go do the same thing to the next seller. We cannot
prevent fraudsters and scammers anyway. And in my personal opinion, the feedback
system is not a fair guide to good or bad users, which is why I hardly ever look
at it. So for me personally, this would not be a help at all and might just make
some buyers wary of placing orders in the first case. Some users might feel different,
but the idea that the site should limit the buying experience beyond already
having minimum buys, minimum lot averages, NPB and the one-sided right to cancel
for sellers, does not sit well.
In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | This will be unpopular with new buyers but may have support from sellers who
have been defrauded.
We instituted a measure to protect from fraud (based on being defrauded in the
past) where we require buyers to have a minimum of 5-10 positive feedbacks in
order to purchase certain high priced sets.
Currently, we can only put that in the item's description and buyers ignore
it and place the orders anyway which creates a sticky situation.
So the suggestion is:
Add a feature to individual listings that will prevent buyers with feedback rating
under X to purchase a certain item.
I can see merit to limiting X to 10 so sellers don't demand a buyer has 10,000
to be able to purchase items.
We allow 0 and low FB rated buyers to buy 99.99% of listings in our shop but
have been burnt a couple of times by 0 FB buyers who bought sealed sets in mint
condition and claimed they were opened and used and returned us boxes with non-LEGO
items in one instance and ransacked set on another purchase- PayPal obviously
sided with the buyers both times.
I'm hoping this will be a measure that would prevent this type of fraud and
will be optional to allow sellers the chance to opt out.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 07:40 | | Subject: | Please stop pre-selecting shipping methods | | Viewed: | 177 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| On checkout from my store, please stop:
Pre-selecting a shipping method in my store for any buyer to use.
I cannot and do not set those defaults. BL cannot assume for itself the right
to pick and choose defaults for any contractually determined matter between myself
and the buyer, on my behalf. The shipping method to use is the one the buyer
actively chooses.
I had an order this morning where the buyer told me in prior negotiation what
he wanted. He was then able to place an order using a different shipping method.
This because that experienced buyer did not think to change what was pre-selected
by BL during checkout.
I also had an order last week from a new user who did exactly the same thing.
It is not for BL to choose what shipping method is applicable for any buyer.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | How is BL supposed to update the shipping tables that you use?
As far as I know BL will only show the estimate from your own shipping settings
and only when you set the setting to show the estimate on checkout:
Show estimated fees on:
Checkout page
Estimated fees will be shown to the buyer. You may override them on the Order
Received page before invoicing orders.
|
Interesting, so this is seller input data and they are choosing to display it?
This functionality allows a seller to show a low estimated S+H then hit buyers
with a much higher charge once they place a "legally binding" order.
In that case, I'm glad I least favourited the seller.
This is nothing more than a way to con buyers into thinking shipping and handling
is a low price to get them to place an order.
|
BL only shows the estimated S&H for the first available shipping option in your
terms. I have multiple shipping options for domestic users, but because the "other"
shipping options have no rates, there is no estimate shown, other than "TBD"
(first image)
If I disable that method, then the next one is shown, which is not the cheapest
either, apart from the rate being inaccurate because I've not adjusted the
exchange rate for it. (second image)
I have never had a setting that lets me determine what must be shown to the buyer.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | BL should stop showing estimated shipping and handling charges, as this gives
a false impression of what they are. For example, I almost placed an order at
this store. But reading through the terms, there are extra handling fees, extra
paypal fees and different shipping costs to those estimated and shown here.
|
Thank you, yes.
I've also seen a few that were way off the other way - when the estimate
is very much higher than what the actual is going to be. Fortunately I could
use quote requests in some of those instances or at least check the rates and
request a different shipping method myself. I do fear however that some buyers
might rather just empty their carts.
| |
Showing an estimated value gives a false impression, and may lead to a (supposedly
legally binding) order being placed only to find out the actual costs are significantly
higher than those estimated.
|
Also, no store actually knows which shipping method, currency or payment method
the buyer will choose. BL cannot be picking defaults or preferences for sellers
when sellers have not actually set those up as defaults or preferences.
| |
Of course, this could be completely removed by making the orders non-binding
until the seller has disclosed all costs and the buyer has a chance to agree
to them. But in the meantime, stop misleading buyers with incorrect estimated
values.
|
Agreed, both parties should actually agree on the entire order prior to it being
binding. No point in BL making compliance with country laws mandatory and then
doing everything in a manner designed to avoid doing just that. And there are
some things buyers should also adhere to in terms of consumer laws, electronic
transaction laws and privacy laws here, those are not just for sellers.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2020 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Maybe this is not so complete as catmins would like to believe it is as it appears
that none of those sets are in the catalogue at this time.
|
There are several sets already in the catalog and here are a few, with the first
on the list having been added in 2002:
The technical issue involved changing building instructions from Gear to Sets,
but we're open for submissions of additional sets. So the project is complete.
|
So you want items like
submitted as a set together with a request to delete the gear entry
and moving the sticker entry from gear to the set once approved? Can't associates
just add the sets anyway as the information is mostly there already? I'm
sure users will not mind doing the work, it just seems a bit like double work
for the same reward since some of the changes can only be made by associates
anyway.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2020 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
snip
I'm still waiting to add an inventory for Batman and Robin and a few others.
My instructuons for that Batman and Robin model has unfortunatly gotten a bit
damaged, but the parts are still sealed in the container, thank goodness.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2020 07:05 | | Subject: | Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| From the to-do list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
Add Sets Members Want - A project to discuss and possibly add pickable
models, in-store builds, and other similar sets to the catalog...
Project Review: This project traveled directly from under consideration to completed.
There were no existing guidelines discussing these kinds of sets, so no policy
changes were required. Instead, after administrative discussion, the majority
were in agreement to rescind the unwritten rule that prohibited addition of these
sets.
Date first added: December 6th, 2018
Date work began: June 13th, 2020
Goal for completion: July 1st, 2020
Date actually completed: June 17th, 2020
Suggested by: Many members
Maybe this is not so complete as catmins would like to believe it is as it appears
that none of those sets are in the catalogue at this time.
Also:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1204676
seems to be voided now.
So perhaps this project should be set to under consideration again just so the
ball is not dropped and the technical issues, whatever those may be, can be addressed
before the goal date. I would dearly like to believe that BL will eventually
give members what they want.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2020 00:55 | | Subject: | Re: Parts in new colors by set history | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, TtOoWwAa writes:
| | Hi,
Can we get a feature that tells us what year a part comes out in a new or previoustly
discontinued color for that part, or a previoustly discontinued color in general
(eg dark turqoise) and also the set that it comes in.
I say this because right now I have to wait for a new set to be on the web, look
closley at photos of it and see if there are any new part recolors, then I will
put it in a table with the part number, the color, the part name, the set it
comes in first, and the quandity.
Luckily Im only doing this with technic / sami-technic parts but as you might
imagine it is quite tedious.
I am aware that there is the NEW keyword bedide a part that has been released
in a new color however this does not tell us what set it comes in right away
because you can have a bricklink part catalog entry but the section "part appears
in" can be blank for a while,
I know that a load of people are interested in part recolors so I think this
feature would make the bricklink catalog a more powerful tool for lego fans!.
Any questions, leave a reply.
Thanks, SNIPE
|
Try:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp
For dark turqoise you mentioned, scroll down to that colour, click on the sets
link and sort by year:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=5&pg=1&colorInSet=39&catType=S
For parts, click on the parts link on that colours page, then sort by year again:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=5&pg=1&colorPart=39&catType=P
You can also just view of all of the technic parts by going to:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogSearch.asp
Selecting "parts" for item type, "technic" for the Category and the colour you
want from the drop down list. I'm afraid though I do not know how to select
multiple categories, so I have to do it for axles, pins, links, panels etc as
a search each time. Probably why I prefer to just use the colour page and sort
by category if that is what is needed:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=3&pg=1&colorPart=39&catType=P
then click on the specific categories I need. There might be an easier method
lurking somewhere.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 17, 2020 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: Pickable Models and In-Store Builds | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Looks like things are changing around here. Behold what we approved today:
|
Whoot! Can I resubmit my pickable models from 2012 or are you just going to change
the instruction entries to sets?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 06:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41904-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FCBricks writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 901956 Trans-Clear Sorting Tray Lid, Dots 7 Compartment (Fits 901957)
* Add 1 Gear 901957 Medium Azure Sorting Tray Dots, 7 Compartment, Bottom (Fits 901956)
|
These requests will not be accepted since these gear items are considered the
original box for this set and are therefore not added to the inventory. They
are basically the same as the plastic tub for a set such as
Cheers,
Randy
|
With respect, having one of these DOTS sets in hand now, I have not seen TLG
make mention of the handy storage trays for those tubs. Also, by that argument,
set does not have a lid or that inventory should be changed for
part to be removed from inventories and made gear items.
TLG mentions very specifically that the DOTS sets set includes these trays. See
also for instance the MBA series of sets which specifically also mentioned the
storage tray and those trays are included in the set inventories.
If it really is seen as part of the box, at least add an inventory note and state
that the trays are separate gear items and deemed not to be part of the set.
There should then at least also be a note for the original box entry in the catalogue
on these sets which should mention that the box consists of three items: the
carton, the tray and the lid, and that a original box listing is incomplete if
it does not include all three items (this since there is no listing policy for
what consitutes a complete original box in cases where such boxes include gear
items). Simply disconnecting these items from the set and not making it clear
that it is deemed to the actual box and not a storage tray included in the set
as mentioned by TLG, might lead to confusion.
Just so you know, I was ready to add this to the catalogue (again) because I
really did not think that it was part of the packaging or the set box which can
be thrown out. To be honest, I would have great difficulty seeing a listing for
the box to refer to the storage trays as it is currently handled.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2020 07:31 | | Subject: | Re: Set 41376 extremely erroneous | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, LegoLars writes:
| | I'm currently parting out some 41376 sets. And I've discovered that it's
heavily erroneous. Many parts not even listed. Some parts only listed in Extra
parts section.
How can I request a complete re-check on that set inventory? Inventory change
requests would be quite tedious on this.
Best regards,
Lars
|
Are you sure you are not including the parts for the minifigure in
your part out? Break the minifigures when you part out as that should then give
you all of the parts.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 5, 2020 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Could Dark Pink be another Brittle Blue | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, Pippyblocks writes:
| | This is mainly for the colour fanatics here.
Had a largish haul of parts with a lot of Dark Pink bricks. Whilst sorting I
found quite a few sun damaged so just binned as I found them. But just had another
look at one and I don't think it is sun damage after all. It has totally
changed colour and completely consistent throughout. I would say this is the
same as the 'brittle blue' thing. Attached an image so show different
(photo doesn't quite capture it perfectly). Another one I'll add to
my ever-growing collection of weird Lego colours.
|
In time they will go almost dark orange and not uniformly so. Noticed it in 2018
on my dark pinks I got in bulk ca 2010
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1092132
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 05:20 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| As a long time buyer and importer on here, No. I do not want to plough
through a million listings in every sellers' store and sit an pick through
a thousand parts to make sure a seller has sent me the correct grade of an item
or receive a million ziplocks for every order. Also, I do not want to purchase
new and used VCG in one lot. New vs used is a factual statement, lots are split
that way and sellers can be held accountable for lots that do not meet that factual
split. I cannot conceive of holding a seller accountable for a subjective split.
As a seller, equally No. I am not going to sit around checking for scratches
with a magnifying glass and for purchases on here intended for reselling, I am
not going to regrade sellers' listings for my own inventory. I just spent
2 months counting and sorting 90000 pieces into 5700+ lots. I have no wish at
all to make that 25000+ lots after grading the contents of every lot 1 through
5. I am also not going to invest in more storage bins and racks or for that matter
space.
If you need a damage report on every part a seller sends you, request it from
them prior to ordering. Every single tile from every new set had faint scratches
on. I am not going to grade scratches and little marks in plastic so I can end
up with listings like near mint when I can see "very feint scratches visable
when held at a certain angle outdoors on a cloudy day. Might appear different
indoors, in sunlight, moonlight or under artificial light". No thank you.
In Suggestions, revfds writes:
| | the thing I dislike most about ordering from this site, in how hard it is to
control the quality of the pieces that I get.
And I don't think loose pieces should be categorized between "new" and "used",
because all loose pieces are used (Yes I know you can order them individually
from Lego at times, but functionally when you buy lego it comes in a set, outside
of that set they are used).
|
The functionality of the set does not enter into it. If I buy a set to part out,
the function I am paying for is for the parts, not the set - the set is merely
a convenient method of packaging. If I were to buy for the purposes of building
it, then once built the parts are used. The function of my buying patterns have
nothing at all to do with the factual statement of new v used and is not a measure
of grading either.
And I suppose all cars are new when they leave the factory but when driven onto
the showroom floor they then become used as functionally the car was driven,
so that no dealer has ever sold a new car? I think not.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 2, 2020 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
|
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
* | | 3626bpb0203 Minifigure, Head Dark Bluish Gray Moustache and Bushy Eyebrows, Black Cheek Lines, White Pupils Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
|
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
|
So all of the decorated parts (with their own TLG numbers) must be renumbered
because for sure TLG does not number all of the decorated 1 x 2 tiles the same
number with an pb extension - they give each one a different number as best I
know. And then only keep the number available for a little while and do not supply
it for parts from collectible minifigs etc etc.
| |
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
https://brickset.com/parts/4227735/mini-upper-part-no-970
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
|
Hmm, no, the example of jumper studs was given already. It is not a matter of
being anal to recognise mold differences. You can try it yourself with this part:
Newer parts clutches, older ones fall off. I would like to think that TLG intended
that improvement, that they stopped making the old part becasue it was not doing
the job it was supposed to do and that the new part should be sold with new sets.
However, the old part came in older sets and what will you do if a buyer tells
you the old part you sent him is a fake becasue there is no way for him to know
otherwise?
| | because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
|
I have no idea what TLG's intentions are with mold changes and mold variants.
My question was posted in catalogue, not selling. You sell lots, not catalogue
entries. You can refer to the catalogue entry in your listing, you could also
use the catalogue image and you might even end up in the price guide for your
listing, but that all has nothing to do with the catalogue entry as reference
source, which is where my question was posted.
The only requirement BL has for you to list a lot with a refrence to the catalogue
entry, is that you must not mix new and used in the same lot. It is a general
selling offence to sell used as new in a lot, but generally not to mix variants.
So I do not think it unfortunate the catalogue can serve as a reference guide
but also as a sales tool. To do both qually well, will always be a challenge.
If every car manufacturer only makes white cars, there will be no other colours.
This does not mean that all consumers by default mostly want a white car, it
just means that car manufacturers are all the same and treat their customers
all the same, no matter what their customers might say or think.
What does happen in the BL listings though is that you frequenlty get a seller
who tells you that it is too much effort to list properly in variants, but price
their non-specific and incorrect unsorted parts at the high price for the scarcer
out of production part. In essence it is not too much work to look up the part
in priceguide, but it is too much work to list it properly. Strange - doing half
a job for the full gain.
| |
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
|
Nope, the differences in question arised in a certain time period, continued
for awhile and then stopped, as I have them from three different sets from three
different years, as I mentioned from 2008 - 2010. I also have the current catalogue
entry for that torso assembly from prior to that period and after that period.
I would agree that for reference purposes it would not even be important if it
occured in only one set at one time. I've had some misprints on tiles like
that and do not bother with it. This however, stood out for the reasons I gave
above.
The LEGO site does not keep its information nor keep a snapshot of the situation
as it was 10 years ago. The information you refer to is either:
1. kept current with current part numbers and current designs; or
2. Not a historical record of what happened.
The LEGO site is not a reference source by any stretch of the imaginaition as
it is designed as a site to sell current replacement parts, not serve as a reference
work (which is what a catalogue does).
And for reference purposes, the part in question was submitted as new entry.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 05:25 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
snip
| |
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
|
Under a magnifying glass, they both look equally dotty (or pixelated). I hope
the image at the original resolution can show that. Also the tie on the black
knot, seems to have some shading whereas the tie with the white knot looks to
be more of a solid colour. I cannot tell if there is a difference in printing
apart from the fact that they look different.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 04:40 | | Subject: | Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 109 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have some from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 30, 2020 03:26 | | Subject: | Re: Train wheels | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I am going to come in from another angle regarding variants. When you look at
messages like these: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1200217
you cannot help but think that the catalogue should be the first place where
buyers and sellers should get answers. Probably a user who is savvy enough to
request these specific wheel assemblies, will know about the difference in colour,
but this is not guaranteed.
You say there are no proper guidelines as to what must be done from the catalogue
point of view for variants at this time. I do not think that you would need those
guidelines. I do not think you actually need to write guidelines at all regarding
variants. You merely need to answer which of these failures would be better for
sellers, buyers and users of the BrickLink catalogue to live with:
The BrickLink catalogue recognises all parts produced by TLG and found in a set
(fail); or
The BrickLink catalogue recognises an item as a part if TLG made the part (fail);
or
The BrickLink catalogue recognised an item as a part only if TLG included it
in a set (fail); or
The BrickLink catalogue exists so that sellers can list all items found in sets
(fail); or
The BrickLink catalogue allows comparison of various parts found in sellers'
inventory through its price guide (fail).
There are two basic questions you should answer as a catalogue associate when
deciding on if a variant must be recognised and included in the catalogue:
1. A part can only be recognised when it factually appears in a set and can be
proven to appear in a set; or
2. A part can be recognised as a catalogue entry if TLG produced that part.
If you go with 1, you will always have the problems you have now. 2 Is, respectfully,
where you should be moving to and where the catalogue should end up if it wants
to be the premier catalogue of all things LEGO.
LEGO now owns the catalogue. Surely it must be very much easier now to get a
heads up of mold changes and variants than before? Surely if LEGO wants to help
the adult community thrive, then it can choose to be more involved in the catalogue
of all things LEGO?
Sellers sell lots, and while they may refer to the catalogue listing and indeed
feature on the price guide with an incorrect listing or deliberately obtuse
listing, no seller has ever sold a single catalogue item. The argument that it
would be disruptive to sellers to split variants is therefore a non starter.
The argument that you need catalogue guidelines as to how to cope with variants
is, likewise, a non starter if the catalogue goal is to be a catalogue of items
produced by TLG. If the argument is that the catalogue is only a collection of
items TLG produced and recognised by the catalogue associates, inventory admins
and the catalogue administrator as being in a set, then again you do not need
guidelines - any one of you can simply say that an item must not be recognised
and the goal is accomplished.
Of course it is disruptive to undo 20 years of work, however incorrectly that
work was done. Of course it is difficult to have a catalogue of all things LEGO,
but that is why you have contributors who spend vast amounts of money and time
to make catalogue contributions.
If you cannot split the variants out properly, you must get on to a system where
there is a single help page with comparative images of variants for each part
and with decent notes, and make sure every listing reference those pages. Over
time that will evolve into an accurate as possible catalogue of items TLG produced
with a proper timeline and then sellers can refer to the catalogue to list their
inventory.
What you will never succeed in is if variants are recognised on some questions
such as is this functional or is this an improvement. How would you know? Whatever
guidelines you might write will always be a subjective measurement of the objective
question: did TLG produce this part? If they did, it is a part that must be recognised
as a part, a seller should be able to list it accurately and a buyer should be
able to buy with confidence. This might be a lot of work, but think for a second
if any seller would like to be hit for $2500 damages claim by PayPal as of the
end of June for selling fakes on the back of an uniformed claim for some ignorant
buyer, such as my first example. How much time do you think stores should spend
on these sort of issues, when such could have been dealt with decent catalogue
entries?
If not for any other reason, the catalogue should move forward and decide what
it wants to be. If it fails as reference guide, if it fails as a priceguide,
if it fails as a catalogue of all things LEGO, then why bother? Just have seller
make his own catalogue. You do not need for parts to be in inventories to have
them recognised as variants. It is nice if the inventories are correct, but a
seller parting out a set for listing purposes, must still anyway check his inventory
or at least note that the BL inventory at such date as used to list these items.
Even if you make guidelines, how will that help sellers to list parts accurately?
How will that inform buyers? How will that make a catalogue when you have subjective
decisions? Even the decision not to split variants was arbitrary and subjective
as it was taken at a given point, but some variants were still were recognised
after that time and some still before that time.
As a seller I should think it normal that a vintage out of production scarce
part should be easy to list, find and should in fact be priced higher than it
newer counterpart every seller and his cat can offer for sale because they can
go get loads of them at any LEGO store. The opposite should frankly not be the
goal here and should not be allowable.
I personally think that a large part of the backlog of problems lie with the
fact that new PCC's are added without parts being in hand. In my rather limited
experience, PCC changes underpin a change in the part so that is already a starting
point. The guidelines should be for listings using the catalogue, not the catalogue
recognising what is a LEGO item and when it should be recognised as such.
Since this is a catalogue issue, you do not get to pay the 2c worth, it is free
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, lego.12vtrains writes:
| | I really can't understand why it was rejected, at most twice, so please could
any catalogue Admin take part in this discussion and explain us the reasons of
this decision?
|
Here is the most relevant part of the PM I sent to Reza when I rejected his pending
submission:
Right now we're rarely splitting part variants. We want to get our guidelines
figured out for these before we put more work into them. We expect that to occur
by the end of 2020. We already had an additional note for this part and it was
already listed on our part variant page.
Speaking of the part variant page, please take a look at it now:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Which ones of those 267 part variants should we split? This train wheel set
is just one of them. And what criteria should we use to decide? We have no
guidelines at all on this.
What about the 85 known print variants? And when are the 76 part variants that
we've already split going to be finished for inventories? Some of them were
split as far back as 2004 and 16 years later they're still not completed.
As I explained to Reza: if the CAs could have a little room right now to figure
out where the site is going with variants of all kinds, then it would be appreciated.
I also told Reza that the likelihood of adding these wheel variants as catalog
entries in the future is rather low, because I suspect they are. But in truth
I cannot know for certain what the exact chances of getting them in are.
I hope this fully explains the decision, but please ask if you have further questions.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 29, 2020 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cty0140 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| I've created a new minifigure with a request to swap out the current image
as that is obviously the correct image for the new entry.
I am very well aware of the thread your referenced and the excellent work done
by that member of this community. This is the reason I did not create a new one
in the first instance as I did not think as far as swapping out images. For what
is worth, I do not have a brown eyebrow minifigure from that set to submit as
a new image for the existing inventory. As you said, a fine mess.
Jean
In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, bje writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | cty0140 (Inv) Blue Jacket with Pockets and Orange Stripes, Blue Legs, Dark Orange Short Tousled Hair, Brown Eyebrows, Glasses
Minifigures: Town: City |
* Delete 1 Part 3626bpb0122 Yellow Minifigure, Head Glasses Rectangular, Brown Thin Eyebrows, Smile Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
* Add 1 Part 3626bpb0122b Yellow Minifigure, Head Glasses Rectangular, Red Thin Eyebrows, Smile Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Comments from Submitter:
See minifigure image, also from my copy of the same set
|
These requests will not be accepted.
This minifigure head has now been found with four different colors of eyebrows:
brown, reddish brown, dark red, and red. The catalog does not distinguish the
four different colors at this time, and we are not planning on doing it in the
near future due to the large amount of work for little reward.
This recent thread is worth looking over:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1189272
Since the minifigure was inventoried with a head with "brown" eyebrows and the
original image was replaced many years later, we honestly don't know how
many different eyebrow colors were used in this set. Also, we cannot just change
the minifigure inventory as many sellers have this item for sale and some would
likely have it with a different head.
If you want to at least get your head recognized for now, you will need to create
a new minifigure (cty0140a) with the head you have that would get added as an
alternate to the minifigure currently in the set. At least in this way, we will
know that one with "red" eyebrows was found at some point if we decide to figure
this mess out some day.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 04:06 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig cty0140 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | cty0140 (Inv) Blue Jacket with Pockets and Orange Stripes, Blue Legs, Dark Orange Short Tousled Hair, Brown Eyebrows, Glasses
Minifigures: Town: City |
* Delete 1 Part 3626bpb0122 Yellow Minifigure, Head Glasses Rectangular, Brown Thin Eyebrows, Smile Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
* Add 1 Part 3626bpb0122b Yellow Minifigure, Head Glasses Rectangular, Red Thin Eyebrows, Smile Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Comments from Submitter:
See minifigure image, also from my copy of the same set
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 06:09 | | Subject: | Re: Comments during instant Checkout | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | Ah I forgot, in the case of onsite payment, instant checkout does not trigger
an invoice, right? This is always a bit confusing because the invoice does show
up as checked, indicating that an invoice was sent.
Anyway the purchase confirmation is not an invoice as it's neither a payment
instruction (pro forma invoice) nor a valid receipt. You always need to get an
order confirmation first (in the EU it gives you rights to the items, provided
that the seller can deliver). Also, changing it to "invoice" would cause the
buyer to receive two "invoices" if they are not paying onsite.
|
That is not correct. There are three message templates related to orders being
placed. Purchase confirmation is used when the buyer pays at instant checkout.
Order Notification and Order invoice are sent if the buyer does not pay at checkout.
For example if they choose a shipping method and/or payment method that can't
pay at checkout.
|
Further information on this: the order invoice is sent immediately when the order
is placed if the shipping method qualifies for instant checkout but the buyer
selects a payment method that does not qualify for instant checkout.
|
And that uses the same template as the manual invoice, but you can set it up
for different payment methods. So you can make a conditional "invoice" for IBAN
(EQ:18), PayPal (EQ:11), Bank Transfer(EQ:16) and any other offsite payment method
that is available, but with very odd spacing.
| |
The seller has to manually send the invoice if the buyer selects a shipping method
that does not qualify for instant checkout.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 04:00 | | Subject: | Re: Comments during instant Checkout | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, BHamBricks writes:
| | I recently decided to add instant checkout to my store. I received my first
ever neutral feedback because I didn't include a note as requested in the
buyer's comment section. My suggestion is to add the buyer's comments
section on the sellers invoice (like it always has been on the invoice when an
invoice was requested). There is no buyer's comments section on the email
I receive notifying me that an order has been placed. In this instance, this
caused an unpleasant experience for the buyer.
|
Did you put the BUYERCOMMENTS in your template? Then it should work.
Not even sure how you managed to have a different invoice for IC than for manual?
I wish there was a INSTANTCHECKOUT-EQ conditional macro tag to handle that, but
there isn't...
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/mystore/message_templates.page
The one you want to edit is "Purchase Confirmation", that is supposedly an invoice
you issue for instant checkout. I am thinking of adding some lines to that so
it can serve as a sort of an invoice and a receipt in one, or well, just something
better than basically telling the buyer he has ordered a thing from somewhere
with not even a thank you for the payment and no terms.
You of course cannot edit the header and call the thing an invoice, grrr
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 07:34 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts T sect | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| T section
My apologies for the lateness of these, I really struggled with Technic and had
to gain a fair bit of mechanical and other knowledge in a very short time. I
should have actually started with those definitions in hindsight
I mentioned my problems with tail parts in other posts. For the time being though
I went with tiles and wedges modified by a fin, so as to cut out issues with
round bricks that perform a similar function.
Tail - For tiles and wedges modified by a fin and that function as the
rear section of aircraft, including rockets.
Tap - For items that control the flow of liquid using a valve. Note
1
Technic, Axle - For bars with one or more grooved sides. Note 2
Technic, Brick - For bricks that have holes through the side primarily
used in Technic sets.
Technic, Connector - For modified bushes and adaptors that are used as
sockets for pins and axles, primarily in Technic sets. Note 3
Technic, Disk - For flat, circular items with a center hole primarily
used in Technic sets. Note 4
Technic, Figure Accessory - For items of clothing and other accessories
intended to be worn or used by Technic figures.
Technic, Flex Cable - For tensioned cables and their accessories used primarily
in Technic sets. Note 5
Technic, Gear - For wheels and their accessories that have teeth around the
edge and are used, primarily in Technic sets, to control power to moving parts.
Note 6
Technic, Liftarm - For modified Technic bricks with rounded corners used
as structural beams, primarily in Technic sets. Note 7
Technic, Link - For items that make the rigid joints in linkages or items
used to make continuous track systems and are used primarily in Technic sets.
Note 8
Technic, Panel - For panels modified by having pin holes and used primarily
in Technic sets
Technic, Pin - For connectors that are used as plugs, primarily in Technic
sets. Note 9
Technic, Plate - For plates and round plates modified with holes in the top
surface, that are primarily used in Technic sets. Note 10
Technic, Shock Absorber - For items that absorb and dampen excessive vibrations
and are primarily used in Technic sets.
Technic, Steering – For item assemblies and their component parts that
are used for controlling direction, and used primarily in Technic sets. Note
11
Throwing Disk - For flat, circular items designed to be tossed through
the air.
Tile - For plates modified such that there are no studs on or other modifications
top. Note 12
Tile, Modified - For tiles that include an attachment or modification.
Tile, Promotional - For tiles with a pattern intended to promote a location,
event, or other thing deemed worthy of promotion.
Tile, Round - For tiles that have one or more rounded corners, with or without
attachments or modifications.
Tire & Tread - For the rubber rings designed to fit on the outer edge
of a wheel, which may also be decorated with an anti-slip pattern. Note 13
Train, Track - For the rails upon which trains travel. Note 14
Turntable - For items designed with a motionless housing or base and a
part which provides for rotation, including accessories of such items. Note
15
Notes:
1. The US definition of a faucet can then include taps, spigots and mixer valves
2. Axles do not allow for connection, they allow turning motion. Also, bars are
defined as rods already, this more being a specially modified bar probably.
3. Socket used in the sense of female adaptor and adaptor used in the sense of
connecting differing parts or changing direction through a connection.
4. US definition of a disk, holes are the same as for bricks, which are also
not specified as Technic holes.
5. Flexible cables generally refers to a type of electrical cable. It is my understanding
that these cables and their accessories generally are used more like guy-wires,
the accessories obviously to provide the tensioning mechanism.
6. To avoid the circular gearing.
7. To avoid Technic bricks being classed as beams as those can have the same
function. Technic bricks defined as having holes through the sides. Don't
know if the definition must include a mention of the thickness of these items.
8. To avoid the circular definition, also there are two types of items in this
category.
9. Plug used in the sense of the male adaptor for the socket types under connectors
or brick holes.
10. Plate as defined with squared corners, round plate as defined with rounded
corners. Holes same as for bricks.
11. To avoid the circular definition.
12. Plate already defined as square corners
13. To avoid the idea of cushioning by shock absorbers, also the tread is the
pattern. Followed the US definition of a tyre.
14. Some rail track parts are flexible
15. Rotation rather than spinning as some of these parts are not free moving.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 06:25 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Under the new definitions,
could fall under either plate modified or hinge. Should we make an exception
for handles? Or should we handle these cases by defaulting to the existing categorization?
|
It's your catalog. What would you like to see and how would you revise the
category descriptions to make it happen?
|
Maybe the definition at present is too broad in its scope. Should it not reflect
the specialised nature of the parts to be included in that definition, something
like:
Hinge - For items that facilitate one degree of movement by using a stepped
gear or a pin and knuckle assembly to pivot when connected or .
or
Hinge - For items that facilitate one degree of stepper motion or rotation
using a pintle when connected.
Parts which use handles, clips and bars to perform that movement can then stay
in their respective categories as the hinge parts are specialised for a specific
type of movement or using a specialised method of connecting.
The one degree of movement obviously refers to the plane of movement so that
ball and socket joints are excluded form here, as they should be. Stepper motion
or stepped motion or stepping motion to seperate from brushed motion in the same
plane, which is what would achieved with plates, bricks etc attaching with a
clip or a bar. The pin and knuckle components are specific to hinge design as
far as I know, so again that can exclude pins, bars and clips used for a similar
movement.
I would not like to see clip and bar systems included in the hinge category as
that would mean that some doors and windows also have to move.
I would not like to see the hinge category removed as getting these items under
modified cylinders, bricks, plates, panels, slopes and whatever else is really
not a good idea as it would complicate those sections far too much or worse
still, having categories for modified cylinders and the like.
Also, if you stick with the type of motion or type of connecting parts, you can
make the definition probably easier than having to deal with specific parts designed
to fit together in a specific way to allow for a specific subset of joints to
function in an intended manner
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
I think I've figured out that, in addition to the other problems with variants,
BrickLink perpetuates the somewhat delusional thinking of pride in owning a period-specific
set.
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate. And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
Don't know about the delusion so much, but I would be pretty ticked off if
somebody sold me a so-called used complete at $1 000 and it included
a bunch of modern cheap variants. Or worse still some early space sets with
the wrong clips, and LBG and DBG parts. It is all relative - someone like me
prefer to deal ith the correct thing at the correct time and I am prepared to
invest the time and effort in it. From experience with return buyers, I know
I am not alone. And yes, I've had buyers ask me to check pips, pins, hole
sizes, clips and mold numbers and send images prior to shipping and also to make
sure the variants and colour differences are correct. Of course I've also
had buyers who just do not care.
I personally would not go as far as to mention closed and open pins and combinations
thereof, but I find for the serious buyer it pays to find serious sellers, catalogue
failings notwithstanding
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
Hmm, those are wheels:
and fit your description but I’m not sure we’d want them in the Wheel category
|
Me neither, Let me sleep on it though
snip
| |
Dang. No one ever agree with anyone, not even lexicologists.
(French “véhicule” (the etymon) admits the “extended” usages.)
|
And in Afrikaans (voertuig) any mobile machine used for transport.... which can
makes things easier or more difficult
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
|
Potential problem with “axle”: it could be understood as “Technic axle.”
Maybe it should be amended with examples, like “(Technic axle, Technic pin, or
wheel pin).”
|
Hmm, you are right, I was trying to move away from the hub idea. Maybe leave
off the axle part altogether then:
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
| | | | by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
|
| |
| | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
 By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
Vehicle noun (MACHINE)
B1 [ C ] formal
a machine, usually with wheels and an engine, used for transporting people or
goods on land, especially on roads
Cambridge English Dictionary set to US English specifically
Also, we have aircraft and boat sections, which presumably should exclude those
from being in another section.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Plate | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
which will be a round plate
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Plate | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
New definition:
Plate - For items nearly identical in use to building bricks that are one
third as tall, have one or more studs, and for which all corners are square.
Sorry, but is it the intention that these parts and a few other similar ones
are to be moved to category plates as they all satisfy that definition?
The concern I have is that we are moving away from the plate being a representation
of a brick in 1/3 height as TLG defines it as well. There are at present no bricks
with missing studs along the top, so should plates not be the same? IOW if there
are studs missing, we class that as normal for a plate and not a modification.
Or am I just reading the definition wrong (in which case it is probably not meeting
expectations )
This does impact on what tiles are as well (plates with no studs essentially),
so best to get it out of the way.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 12:43 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'll hopefully have the final T-section ready by tomorrow
Definitions – Section V Parts
Vehicle - For a sub-theme of Legoland sets that featured vehicles released
from the early 1960s to the late 1970s. Note1
Vehicle, Base - For items that function as a platform on which to construct
vehicles and their accessories. Note 2
Vehicle, Mudguard - For items that combined make up the wheel well, fender
and fender flares on vehicles and the mudguards on riding cycles. Note 3
Definitions – Section W Parts
Wedge - For items other than plates that have a narrow edge at one end
and a wider edge at the other end. Note 4
Wedge, Plate - For plates that have a narrow edge at one end and a wider
edge at the other end. Note 5
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
Wheel & Tire Assembly - For items that are a combination of a wheel and
a tire.
Wheel, Accessory - For items that are parts of entire wheels, wheel axles
and other wheel accessories such as wheel covers.
Window - For the frame of an opening in a structure or vehicle that afford
the ability to see out. Note 7
Windscreen - For items used as the front window glass in vehicles, aircraft,
ships and trains for wind protection and which are not panels.
Wing - For items that perform the function of flight support for aircraft.
Note 8
Definitions – Section Miscellaneous
(Other) - For items that are specific to the BrickLink catalog. Note
9
Notes:
1. Certainly this cannot be correct in terms of parts for vehicles? Consider
adding parts specific to vehicles as well.
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
3. Vehicles do not have mud guards, so the combination of parts that make up
the wheel well and its cover (fender, fender flares) are used by definition.
There are presently no parts that make up a quarter panel. Mudguards are only
in use by cycles by definition. Some of the fast food racer parts are bases?
4. To avoid the circular definition. Unless stated as bricks, modified bricks,
slopes, inverted slopes, etc it is maybe easier to just exclude plates from being
wedges.
5. To avoid the circular definition.
6. The hub is only the thing to which spokes are connected and is not for all
wheels. Also, not all wheels get tire and tread (trolley wheels).
7. The opening itself is generally accepted as the window and the frame into
which the glass is placed is the window frame. I might still be better to combine
these with door frames as just frames.
8. Flight management is, respectfully, performed by rudders and ailerons
9. The death knell of a good catalogue – other?? Good thing they are last Those
are only BrickLink entries.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 07:54 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| A word on plates:
Some plates are not complete in the number of studs as to the size of the plate.
See for example or what are currently some parts classed as tiles.
The TLG definition of a part being 1/3 high should be carried over and plates
should be standard if it has studs completely over it length and width. But
the modified plate section presents a problem if plates are only to be 1/3 high
inclusive of the modification.
Definitions – Section P Parts
Panel - For items that have at least one flat surface to function as a divider
or wall, with or without studs on top.
Paper - For items made of paper or card. Note 1
Plant - For shrubs, stems, leaves, flowers, vines, roots, and related
items and accessories, excluding trees.
Plant, Tree - For plants with wooden trunks, including stumps. Note
2
Plastic - For items made of thin, flexible plastic sheets. Note 3
Plate - For items which are one third the height of a brick with straight
sides, square corners and studs covering the entire top. Note 4
Plate, Modified - For plates that do not have studs entirely over the
top and/or include some attachment or shape modification which can make it higher.
Note 5
Plate, Round - For plates that have one or more rounded corners and with
or without attachments and/or modifications. Note 6
Pneumatic - For items that produce or use pressurized air to perform mechanical
functions and their accessories. Note 7
Projectile Launcher - For any item that serves the primary function of
launching a projectile, their accessories and projectiles made to fit.
Propeller - For items with two or more blades that spin round at speed
to provide movement or control for ships, boats and aircraft. Note 8
Definitions – Section R Parts
Riding Cycle - For bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, tricycles and ATV's
and their accessories.
Ring - For circular items with or without attachments.
Road Sign - For items which are the unadorned backing of decorations such
as signs, notices, signboards or warnings. Note 9.
Rock - For items resembling single rocks or clusters of rocks, including
decorative items carved from rock, jewels, and rock-like ice formations.
Roof - For items primarily designed to protectively cover a structure
and their accessories. Note 10
Rubber Band & Belt - For elastic items and their accessories that are
typically used to perform a mechanical function in a model. Note 11
Notes:
1. Used the same wording as for felt, foam etc.
2. Trunk being the modifier here. Some leaves and top parts to move to the plant
category, unless tree leaves and stems are to be included in the tree definition?
3. Used the same wording as for felt, foam, paper etc.
4. See opening remarks, also to exclude modifications
5. See opening remarks, also to include modifications;
6. Round plates have round corners and modifications added unless new category
for modified round plates are made
7. Pneumatic uses pressurized air for mechanical function
8. Cowlings, housings etc should rather be under the aircraft or boat section,
see engine parts already there.
9. The undecorated parts respectfully does not actually function as the warning
or notice by itself. The decoration is required for the current definition,
which is then only applicable to decorated parts. What is in the category are
the plain backings used for the signage
10. These are only structural roofs
11. Elastic used as these bands and belts return to their original shape and
are not designed to be permanently stretched.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 12, 2020 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts S sect | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| As requested the S and T sections to follow.
Quick discussion for slopes:
A slope can be viewed as a special modified brick (item with 4 straight sides
and studs on top) with at least one side of it being an angle. This precludes
some parts from being slopes altogether as anything without a stud on top will
then be a curve to allow for continuous or joined lines. So in this view a slope
is a brick with at least one side set at an angle and a curve would be anything
that is not a slope brick; or
A slope is a type of part all by itself, in which case the only differential
must be angles vs curves. In this view a slope is an item with angled sides,
with or without top studs. A sloped curve will then be an item with curved sides,
with or without top studs and with or without modification.
Curves as a stand alone category was not considered. An angle should refer to
a straight line not on the horizontal or vertical plane, and a curve to a line
which bends continuously with no straight parts. Given this I went with slopes
and curves being items by themselves, rather than to contort brick definitions
to fit a description or to create new categories.
Definitions – Section S parts
Scala, Figure Accessory - For items of clothing and other accessories
intended to be worn or used by Scala figures. Note 1
Slide - For items with a smooth, sloping side which allows quick travel
from higher to lower elevations. Note 2
Slope - For items with one or more sides angled from bottom to top, with
or without studs on top. Note 3
Slope, Curved - For items with one or more curved sides, with or without
studs on top. Note 4
Slope, Inverted - For items with one or more sides angled from top to
bottom and which may include an attachment or modification. Note 5
Soft Bricks - For sets and other items featuring large bricks and accessories
created from soft plastic and released from the late 1990s to the mid 2010s.
Note 6
Special Assembly – For items from specific sets which is an identifiably
complete usable part of the set including complete vehicles and complete larger
scale figures and – animals, but excluding buildings and recognized part assemblies.
Note 7
Spring - For items which are coiled, can be compressed and will return
to their usual shape once released. Note 8
Stairs - For items that a complete set of steps that leading from one
level to another, or for the individual steps in a stairs. Note 9
Sticker Over Assembly - For stickers that require more than one part to complete
the adhesive surface. Note 10
Sticker Sheet – All of the stickers included in a set as attached to the
complete adhesive backing paper/s for that set. Note 11
String - For items which are thin lengths of cord. Note 12
String Reel / Winch - For spools or spool and crank assemblies using string
for hoisting and items which use string to function such as fire hoses, tow hooks,
and similar items. Note 13
Support - For items which function to hold or carry the weight of other
items or structures to stop those from falling. Note 14
Notes:
1. Used the same wording as for Belville, Figure Accessory
2. By definition, the support accessories are excluded and should rather be supports,
similar to stair supports. It is not just figures which use slides; slides are
often used in materials handling as well.
3. See opening notes. Hinges should move to the hinge category same as hinge
bricks etc.
4. See opening notes
5. The inverse is created by the angle, not the position of the studs or attachment.
Also include the modifier so as to avoid a category for modified slopes.
6. Soft materials can refer to felt, cloth or foam as well.
7. Vehicles for this includes planes, trains, boats and motor vehicles. Presumably
the definition of figure is sufficient to exclude complete minifigures from being
special assemblies. Part assemblies excluded so as to exclude wheel and tire
assemblies.
8. So as to exclude items such as rubber tires which also satisfies the definition
of compressed energy
9. The US definition is used throughout.
10. Note, the definitions are not alphabetical, followed the catalogue page rather.
This from the definition of a sticker which require a surface for adhesion.
11. The sticker sheet is the collective of all of the stickers as included in
sets on the original backing paper, so as to exclude single stickers from any
one set being in the definition.
12. With respect, the current definition is the definition of a cord, not a string
13. Removed the circular definitions of winches
14. Removed the circular reference to support.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
