Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2019 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Catalog Associate! | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
...you will notice a sea of green, followed by a sea of blue, followed by another
sea of green. This means he continued to contribute to the catalog after having
once been an admin, which is (unfortunately) something rather uncommon. But it
demonstrates a great and correct attitude, the kind of attitude we wish to model
for all of our other contributors out there, especially the ones still cutting
their teeth.
|
Sorry, but I must say that I take offense at this statement. You are passing
judgement on the previous admins and their reasons for leaving the site. You
are implying that the 'correct' attitude would be to maintain one's
dedication to a site even after you may have had a bad experience.
You don't know how they were treated by the management and members of this
site.
Jen
|
This thread was supposed to be a joyful welcome for a new team member. I'm
sorry if it was offensive to anyone and I don't want to argue a point.
I will leave this thread as it is for now. But if people keep commenting on this
issue, I will be forced to lock it.
|
 |
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2019 01:14 | | Subject: | We have a new Catalog Associate! | | Viewed: | 338 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello everyone,
I'm very pleased to announce that we have appointed longtime member BricksThatStick
to the Catalog Associate position. Paul served as the site's 4th Inventories
Admin during 2010 to 2011 alongside Emma (SimplyBricks). He effectively replaced
Dan Jezek, the site's founder, who had a special fondness for inventories
work and who of course left very big shoes to fill.
If you take the time to scroll through Paul's 900+ inventories changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?chgUserID=44744&v=3
...you will notice a sea of green, followed by a sea of blue, followed by another
sea of green. This means he continued to contribute to the catalog after having
once been an admin, which is (unfortunately) something rather uncommon. But it
demonstrates a great and correct attitude, the kind of attitude we wish to model
for all of our other contributors out there, especially the ones still cutting
their teeth.
Paul has, over the years, been very active as a seller and many of you will know
him also from his activity in the Forum. We look forward to his practical insights
and we are confident he will play a vital role in our growing catalog team.
Please welcome him back! 
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2019 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship - Items Reference Each Other | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, hpoort writes:
| | Nice idea.
Another examples:
and
There should be more of those pattern-set or pattern-minifig relations.
Hans-Peter
|
I have a Bricklist with a lot of those on it:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-21040
It needs some work, but I think most of the examples are covered.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 23, 2019 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Email vs Message systems | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| We encourage people to use the onsite messaging system when discussing order-related
things, because it is something we can see on our end if there is a dispute.
I know it's a pain to not be able to send attachments, but for us it's
better than having everything done offsite.
In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | When a buyer contacts me, using the contact form on BL, I get an email from BL
with the message. However, replying to that email just results in a bounced email.
I am forced to go into BL message center and copy/paste my text. Even worse when
I need to reply with an attachment (like a photo of a brick): not an option.
This all ends up in two // streams of communication: some messages are sent using
BL, others over direct email.
I'm forced to use a communication medium (BL) that is not adequate. Until
it's adequate, I would suggest to remove the "Messaging" feature all together.
Until BL can offer a mature messaging feature that makes direct email obsolete,
I would suggest to remove the Message feature (and point the users to direct
email contact). Now it's just a very confusing and annoying mix of communication
channels.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Proprietor writes:
| | In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
snip
| | Because our partout system is not yet capable of handling subparts, we're
probably not going to be able to add these sleeves to the regular section of
inventories. Maybe if we change the image and description we can do it, but right
now sellers will end up listing things in their store that buyers cannot identify.
Please have patience as we make some adjustments.
|
And yet, inventories are being changed, and the sleeve is being added as a regular
item and its component parts deleted:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=10220-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
|
Yes, there were a number of them done this way yesterday, but we'll probably
need to make an adjustment.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, hpoort writes:
| | In Inventories, Turez writes:
| | In Inventories, mwright5 writes:
| | Wow! Just seeing that cardboard cape boxes have been added to the catalog.
I usually would prefer to refrain from making a derogatory comment on something
so trivial, but I have to say, that is a new kind of stupid. Give me a break.
|
I would not say that it is stupid to have catalog entries for the cardboard sleeves.
It may be helpful to have a reference for them. But adding the whole cardboard
sleeves to set inventories instead of the included parts is something completely
different.
|
Understanding the wish for (1) having the sleeves in the catalog and thus the
need to include the in inventories somehow, and (2) leaving the functionality
of the inventories as is, brings me to a simple alternate solution:
Add the sleeves as ALTERNATE to the inventories only.
|
This would fall under what is currently described as the counterpart section.
| |
Similar to
- a part with the sticker applied is alternate (as opposed to the stickersheet
and the plain part)
- a combination of parts that is hard to separate is alternate (as opposed
to the parts that make up the combination)
- the parts that are removed from a sprue (as opposed to the entire sprue)
and thus finally:
- a part still packed within the original sleeve (as opposed to the part without
packaging)
How about this alternative?
Hans-Peter
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Turez writes:
Folks, if anything is going to improve in the catalog, we need to give some freedom
and grace to our admins so they can try things out. I can understand if people
get frustrated when they find something has changed and it no longer works for
them, but please understand that we have the long-term interests of the site
in mind, and also that we can adjust and/or reverse any decision that is made.
Regarding these sleeves, we have needed to add them to the catalog for quite
a while now, because of the need to search by the number printed on the sleeve.
Strictly speaking, this is not a PCC, but it's still a number people can
use for reference. Specifically, we want to give the ability to sellers to sell
the parts in the sleeves without having to open the sleeves. The only way they
can do this is to have a reference database showing the contents of every sleeve.
Because our partout system is not yet capable of handling subparts, we're
probably not going to be able to add these sleeves to the regular section of
inventories. Maybe if we change the image and description we can do it, but right
now sellers will end up listing things in their store that buyers cannot identify.
Please have patience as we make some adjustments.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2019 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Why can't I enlarge pics anymore? | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | So you used to be able to click on the picture of a piece in the catalog, sort
of a quick view. You'd see the years it was made, any sets/minifigures the
piece was in, etc. You all know what I'm talking about. Well, a few days
ago I couldn't do it anymore. I've tried three different devices.
Why would they make such a horrible change for? I rely on that heavily when listing
minifigure parts to make sure I have the correct listing. This is going to make
this job twice as long now.
|
Should be fixed now.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2019 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Stickered Assembly numbering BA77pb01 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, samsam2 writes:
| | Not sure if sequence number for multiple stickered assembly parts from same set
should increment the 'pb01' to 'pb02' rather than from BA76pb01
to BA77pb01. The part I'm questioning is [p=BA77pb01] and if it should actually
become [p=BA76pb02]
|
Only if the brick configuration is exactly the same. In fact, the numbering has
nothing to do with which set it came from. If the brick configuration is the
same as an entry already in the catalog, use that entry's number and increment
the pbxx value by one.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list.
|
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models
plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official
parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the
packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section.
Where does it say anything about the official parts count being the primary guide?
It is listed first because it is the easiest and most useful thing to check.
There are cases where the instructions have the final say, e.g. in a situation
where the instructions call for a greater number of parts than the official parts
count.
| | That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.
|
LEGO part counts are exceptionally reliable. There are a few cases where things
don't line up, but for 99.9% of the cases they are spot on. We know that
some sets don't have them, but that is nothing new. Sets produced for the
European market in the 1970's never had them.
| | That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.
|
It is spelled out as much as it needs to be. Any further details about how part
lists were counted slightly differently over the years or limitations of their
usefulness are matters of discussion among collectors. Please read these as examples:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027168
https://www.bricklink.com/aboutMe.asp?u=viejos&pageID=16500
We're not going to put that level of detail in the Help Pages. Our Inv Admins
have access to this kind of information to help them make informed decisions,
but it's too much for the general BrickLink public.
| | This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.
|
Maybe, but probably not. We have other ways to determine what parts should be
considered regular, and one of them is related sets.
| | If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
The parts count is just one tool out of many that we use. It is not used to remove
actual contents from a set, or to add things that were never there. BrickLink's
standard is a sealed set, and that's where we start from when building an
inventory.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
As this set demonstrates, the designation of "extra" items is essentially meaningless,
since the policy now is to document the contents of the box and not the parts
needed to build the models. The simplest thing to do to avoid confusion and the
appearance of inconsistency is to eliminate the extra parts designation entirely.
Of course that might mean apparent conflicts with what you are calling "official"
part counts, but you can't have it both ways. It appears that items are just
being moved from extra to regular or vice versa simply to make the BL inventory
count match the number that sometimes appears on some boxes in some parts of
the world.
|
| | That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.
The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.
|
These policies are grounded in a thorough and correct understanding of LEGO history
in addition to the practical considerations of running a site that sells parts.
When you examine the change log of this inventory, you will see that as far as
extra parts goes, it has remained exactly the same as it was on the day it was
approved in July 2005. That was 14 years ago. Meaning that the extras policy
the admins are defending today is the same one used to create this inventory
all those years ago.
There was no “previous method”. There were some people who (after Dan passed
away) tried to change the way things were done, and for a short while it may
have seemed like there was some sort of new policy. But there was simply no easy
way to change everything the site had done up until that point to accommodate
a new way of defining extra pieces, so this idea of a new extras policy was confined
to a small subset of parts and an even smaller subset of sets that happened to
get inventoried at that time.
BrickLink has always preferred to document the contents of the box vs the parts
necessary to build the set. This is because BrickLink was from the a beginning
a site primarily designed to sell parts, and the inventory system was designed
primarily to part out sets. Sellers parting out sets don’t necessarily care whether
or not parts are used in the instructions. They want a list of parts that they
can upload efficiently to their store inventory and sell.
Initially there was no Extras section, and everything was placed in the regular
section. There is reams of evidence in the change logs to prove this. The Extras
section was designed to handle parts with variable presence so that sellers could
either exclude them categorically or treat them with special care during the
partout process. Parts that invariably came in a set were deemed regular parts.
Those that may or may not have been included were called extras.
Fast forward to several years ago when I was grappling with the task of more
firmly defining the rules for inventories (mainly so that conversations like
this wouldn’t have to take place). The site needed a standard to align itself
with, and it needed to be one that both sellers and collectors could live with.
A very small adjustment consisting of some rubber band holders and a few stacking
pins was all that was necessary to align the traditional partout-focused policy
with the historical practices of the LEGO Group.
So that’s where we are today, and it doesn’t seem shortsighted at all, at least
to me. I actually tried to envision what an instructions-based policy would look
like and where it would lead us. But we’ve got so many sets where there are no
instructions or the instructions only use a certain percentage of the pieces.
And when something is listed in a published parts list, it’s really not in the
site’s best interests to encourage sellers to leave those parts out of what is
considered a “complete” set. It’s just asking for problems.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2019 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 118-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, wannes. writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3230a Blue Train, Track Tapered Rail Curved Inside (Extra)
* Add 1 Part 3229a Blue Train, Track Tapered Rail Curved Outside (Extra)
* Add 2 Part 3228a Blue Train, Track Tapered Rail Straight 16L (Extra)
* Add 4 Part 132old Black Tire Smooth Old Style - Small (Extra)
* Add 4 Part 7039 Red Wheel Old with 4 Studs (Extra)
* Add 3 Part 3034 White Plate 2 x 8 (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
All these items are not used in the instructions, but every sealed set i saw untill now contains them. So if I am correct they should be listed as extra items
|
The tires and wheels look like they were a whole set that always came with the
motor, so I would recommend adding at least those as Regular items.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 18, 2019 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6338-1 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, paulvdb writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | The appearance of 4085b in this inventory seems very strange and may be a mistake. All other sets from that time have 4085c, so I think we should delete all 4085b until we have proof that they came in a sealed copy. Any thoughts?
|
Or someone not familiar with the
variants may have thought the clip was thin when it was really thick.
|
I think this is the most plausible reason.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 16, 2019 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Fabuland Cow head color | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, Stuart9 writes:
| | Fabuland orange would be my guess.
In Colors, samsam2 writes:
| | What color is the head of Fabuland Figure Cow?
I don't recognize it as any current color. It looks closest to Salmon but
I don't have any other parts in this color.
|
|
It could be Dark Salmon, a color we have been thinking about adding to the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Part 2739b in sets from 2012-2014 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| Hi Jonas,
I myself have wondered about this part in our BrickLink inventories for several
years. Confusion seems to have come from images that did not show the differences
clearly enough.
In Inventories, Turez writes:
| | Hello everybody,
before I (maybe) do some proper requests, I'd like to clarify the following
issue regarding part 2739a/2739b in black.
Set 8110 came with 2739b in August 2011. That is correct: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5134871
In November 2011, 2739a was added as alternate. That is correct, too: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5256458
According to the catalog, five sets from 2012-2014 still had 2739b. I think that's
wrong because...
- I tried to find images or videos showing 2739b, but didn't find a single
one.
- All those sets were inventoried by the same person and always with Source:
Parts List.
- The following sets from 2012 and 2013 have 2739a as regular and these sets
were inventoried with Source: Sealed Set Contents.
Images of new sets with 2739a:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5549146
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5583833
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5706003
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5886402
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=6026821
Summary: I think 2739b never appeared in any set from 2012 and later, so I suggest
to delete it from the inventories of 9398, 9396, 9393, 42005 and 42021.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 27, 2019 23:43 | | Subject: | Re: Identify set number from only three parts | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, jameso321xyz writes:
| | I had a hundred or so parts bags that became a bit tedious to identify where
they were from although not impossible, but I was thinking grind a database against
them.
tldr
used the rebrickable public csv files in MS Access to create a crude Query where
given three parts and their specific color can more often than not narrow down
set origin or narrow to 2 or 3
I am not a database expert, I am a novice, but I work with consumer level computer
consulting for small businesses for 20 year etc.
I dont know how to serve it up on the Internet, but I am looking.
I have not written the front end to it because I dont know how yet (should be
easy)
I just thought this might be useful to other people in some capacity
Thanks for reading
|
Just use this:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogIn.asp?viewMulti=Y
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 26, 2019 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: 4070a | | Viewed: | 109 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | Yes, BL has decided not to differentiate between these.
In Catalog, seymour3113 writes:
| | I have several of these bricks (4070a). They are being deleted from catalog.
Should I just list them as 4070?
|
|
Thankfully, since there are so many headlight bricks with varying levels of partial
holes. It was definitely a manufacturing defect.
|
You think the horizontal slot is a defect?
I believe, until Lego says otherwise, the slot is meant to be like this.
Out of all my 4070 at least 80% have a slot, no matter what year or color, no
matter what set it came from.
Too much for a defect.
It is a slot that is always the same form, sharply formed, very straight and
small.
I think it could be made for pressure relieve.
|
Yes, if you look from the inside, the hole is always moulded there. Sometimes
there is a thin skin over it. I think all my newer parts have the slot, with
older ones being hit and miss.
I believe the note on the part 'This part is occasionally found with a small
horizontal slot in the front near the base. This is believed to be an unintentional
feature.' is incorrect. Should be the other way round 'occasionally
found WITHOUT a small...'
|
Exactly my idea!
Maybe we should ask for a catalog change.
|
I've changed the catalog note for both entries. See if that sounds better
to you.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 20, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Protest of 3830c01 marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 121 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mnementh writes:
| | In Catalog, JusTiCe8 writes:
| | Especially when considering the reason why it has been marked:
"This item was marked for deletion because it sets a precedent for adding
dozens of unnecessary combinations of hinges as assemblies to the catalog."
|
And meanwhile, we now have 14 recently created entries for mixed color 3937/
3738 Hinges.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3937c15#T=C
That decision goes directly AGAINST the catalog policy, so I deem those entries
to be stupid and unnecessary.
I believe keeping the 3830c01 single color combos is the right thing to do.
I dislike when admins forget that this is a COMMERCE website first and foremost
and does not exist to maintain a "pure" catalog.
3830c01 has been bought and sold THOUSANDS of times over the past 18 years and
it is clearly the preferred form for both buying and selling.
|
The decision to get rid of the brick hinge and add plate hinge had NOTHING to
do with any kind of purist notion. Rather, it was a decision based solely on
commercial concerns.
When a large portion of sellers list things as an assembly instead of the individual
parts, the listings are effectively split, meaning that for the part in question,
BrickLink's listing strength is diminished. What starts out as a well-meaning
idea based on someone's personal listing preferences then works its way through
the system as an ineffeciency, leading to more complicated wanted list assembly
and maintenance and a lot of missed hits from things like Easy Buy and traffic
that comes to us via Brickset and the Lego replacements parts website.
For that reason, we do not want assemblies in the catalog that have no good rationale
for their existence. The plate assemblies are very useful for sellers of used
parts because they don't have to pull the assemblies apart to list them.
The plate hinges break frequently when they are older.
The brick hinge, to my knowledge, does not break when disassembled. Neither is
it part of a larger class of items that can as a whole be treated as an assembly
- such as wheels and tires.
And lest people forget, this brick hinge assembly was completely removed from
inventories many years ago by Dan himself in what I believe to be was the first
step in decommissioning the entry altogether.
Regarding the idea that we could use the assembly *instead* of the individual
parts as the entry of choice on the site - this is kind of thinking that produced
this entry:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft |
It's just easier and simpler for everyone to use the assembly, and little
by little the assemblies are taking precedence over the individual parts in both
listings and sales.
But the reason we can't do that with the hinge brick is because Lego does
not issue the part as an assembly. They never have and likely never will. This
places a constraint on us, because we want to line up our catalog as much as
possible with the way bricks are treated by them. That way there is a smooth
pipeline through the supply chain. This is the same reason we started using multipacks:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 13, 2019 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve LEGO DC 30623: Shazam! Polybag | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rapar writes:
| | Hello,
Can you please approve LEGO DC Super Heroes: 30623 Shazam Polybag? I have
some in my hands. This polybag can already be purchased in Poland.
If you need more information please let me know.
Thank you!
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 5, 2019 23:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 103-1 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide
* Add 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
* Add 1 Part 3058b Black Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
Comments from Submitter:
See
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1139682
|
You should be able to use the change function now. It was fixed a few days ago.
|
I thought it would not be deployed to the live site until next week. Was it already
pushed to the live site, then?
|
Yes, an exception was made for this bug.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 5, 2019 00:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 103-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide
* Add 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
* Add 1 Part 3058b Black Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
Comments from Submitter:
See
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1139682
|
You should be able to use the change function now. It was fixed a few days ago.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 15, 2019 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Is the inv change request page broken? | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Brixalotl writes:
| | I am trying to enter an alternate part change request and keep getting the error
of "item no required if item type is entered", which I know is incorrect since
the system already has the info when you enter the inv item number. I notice
the layout has been updated since the last time I used it, with the action column
being a drop down now and the item type column has been removed (part, gear,
etc).
I am curious if others are getting the same error, and what I can do to overcome
it.
Thanks,
Jim
|
Yes, there is an issue with the form and we have a bug fix in the works. You
will need to just add and delete for now whenever it involves a type change (Alternate,
Counterpart, etc.)
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 18:15 | | Subject: | We have a new Inventories Administrator! | | Viewed: | 234 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello everyone,
I'm very pleased to announce that we have appointed a new Inventories Administrator,
to fill in the place that Marek left when he was promoted to Catalog Associate.
For this position we have selected member Paulvdb (Paul), whom many of you may
know as a catalog contributor, inventories contributor, and Forum participant.
He is also an established seller (since 2011, I believe) so many of you may know
him also through that channel.
Paul has distinguished himself especially by his work with older inventories,
sharing many sealed set contents data with the site for some of our precious
old vintage sets. We have found his contributions to be ultra reliable and think
he is going to do very well in this new role.
Congratulations are in order!
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 27, 2019 21:21 | | Subject: | Welcome our new administrator! | | Viewed: | 303 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| We have some great news for our catalog contributors - we have promoted Hygrotus,
one of our current Inventories Administrators to a new position, Catalog Associate:
https://www.bricklink.com/memberAdmins.asp
The Catalog Associate position is the same in terms of privileges as our former
Catalog Admin position. However, it is only a temporary position that we will
use as a stepping stone to the new Catalog Admin position, which will include
both catalog and inventories privileges plus a few other things.
Marek recently completed one year as an Inventories Administrator:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1133413
and has done an excellent job. He has brought steadiness and reliability to our
admin team and we look forward to seeing what he will do now on the catalog side
of things. Please welcome him to this new position!
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2019 00:03 | | Subject: | Re: Forms improvements | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| |
So now that the item type column has been removed, how do I perform the change
for set that corresponds to the correction sheet I recently uploaded?
Attached is an image of my form, but BrickLink rejects these changes with the
message "Entry #1: Item No required if Item Type is Entered". I didn't enter
an item type as that column has been removed. If I enter the item no. in the
first two entries, I'm told that it's the same as the current item no.,
so that doesn't work either.
/Jan
|
This is a bug that is being fixed.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2019 23:49 | | Subject: | Re: Method for naming prototype parts | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, whitesidewjw writes:
| | I have several prototype parts in my store. In fact I am thinking that I will
specialize in these types of parts. Is it possible to have a part type called
prototype? These are molded parts made by Lego that were never released in ant
set or any color.
|
Add the word "prototpye" to your listing notes and describe what they are. At
this point, the site does not have a way of tagging listings with such information.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2019 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Questions about Unikitty / Counterparts | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| | Randy,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! (And nice avatar, Blacktron II forever!)
That makes sense, and my only counter-point to that is that Brickset uses info
from here to list minifigures, and being a collector, it's nice to be able
to have each of the alternate figs listed in a collection. Additionally, it gives
sellers more options to sell unique minifigs as well.
Just giving my two cents.
Thanks!
-Kevin
P.S. I'm curious how those decisions are made, is there one person that decides
on all these things, or do a bunch of admins just come to an agreement? Just
wondering
|
We've discovered that the only two to have multiple versions of the minifig
were the SDCC exclusives, and there were no instructions for those - only box
art that wasn't always consistent.
Considering the fact that people aren't going to be parting out those sets
for the minifigures, there doesn't seem to be a lot of harm in leaving those
two as exceptions.
But for all other sets, we've decided one entry is enough. To allow more
entries like this would create a precedent with huge implications. So your pending
entries will be rejected in a few days.
FYI, decisions like this are often made in the back rooms of BL where the admins
have their own Forum.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2019 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Adding gear : clay key chain, 853686 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, mfeusier writes:
| | Hello
Please add a key chain : Clay, Nexo Knights, item 853686
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2019 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Aren't these differences ridiculous? | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rosies writes:
| | Actually,
The powers that be will be removing 3 of them from the catalogue in a few weeks.
|
Is that so? Please elaborate.
| | In Catalog, brikomania writes:
| | I really like the extensive catalog, and think that most of the differences (like
the jumpers or tiles with groove, etc) are really useful.
But when you get to things like this, with a 1 x 2 x 6 arch, having something
like 4 variants, doesn't it make it too hard for sellers AND buyers?
I get the raised arch difference, that is notable, but this thin/thick thing?
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2019 14:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig rsq004 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, jaspervries writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Trans-Light Blue to Trans-Dark Blue} 2447 Minifigure, Visor Standard
|
We now have three new entries to solve this problem:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2019 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Minifig Inventory for 70831? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| | I've been uploading new parts for 70831 the past couple days, and I'm
just about ready to do a full inventory on the set, I'm just waiting for
3 minifigs that I've tried to add to be approved: tlm145, tlm146, tlm147.
I know that they're in line numerically behind other figs that will be approved
once the Apocalypseburg (7084) is approved, can I get an admin to approve them
so I can inventory them and get them added to 70831?
Thanks!
|
They are being held up because of issues concerning the exact build. The rocket
guy has blasts coming out of the rockets. However, we need to decide whether
or not to include the whole blaster backpack assembly or not. Sometimes those
decisions take a while.
The unikitties have similar problems. First, I don't know if we will approve
two different constructions of a minifigure for a single set. This has been done
before, but only on a case-by-case basis.
The sleeping one will get approved for sure since it comes from the primary build.
However, you need to reshoot that one with the head attached as shown in the
instructions. The current pending image shows the head 1/2 stud offset to the
right. It shouldn't cover the Reddish Brown 1 x 1 at all.
I realize the photos on the box and instructions show the sleeping kitty built
the way you have it in your photo, but we try to stick close to the instructions
whenever possible.
Thanks for you contributions so far, especially the images.
Go ahead and move the inventory to pending status using autofill before it drops
off the reservation list. You can add the figs to the pending inventory and the
Inv Admins will address any problems they see.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2019 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
Thanks, everybody, for the responses.
In the last 12 days we have sold as many of the complete series as were sold
in the last 5 months under the random entry.
In response, I have added another of these collective entries:
And when we add The LEGO Movie 2 Series in a few days, it will also have an "entire
series" entry so we can see how it does from the start.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2019 01:26 | | Subject: | Re: Alternate Item Number (Spiky Unikitty Tail) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| | I created the reference 42859pb01 originally (from the SDCC Unikitty from last
year) and now that 70831 is out, the instructions list it as 6253956.
There are a couple other items from that SDCC set that now have alternate numbers
as well. Is there a way I can fix the rest of them? I wasn't sure how to
do it. Thanks!
|
Just fill out this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
You'll need to check this page to know which sequence number to use:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=42859pb01&v=2
The 7 digit number is called a PCC and it is uploaded with a specific color.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 21:48 | | Subject: | Re: set 10221-1 - SDD UCS - correct dimensions? | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, betabinarybrick writes:
| | I do not think the completed dimensions for this set are correct.
Super Star Destroyer - UCS
Item No: 10221-1
Lego Super Star Destroyer - UCS
Item Info
Year Released: 2011
Weight: 6965g
???
Size: 58 x 48.5 x 18.5 cm
???
The box itself say the length alone is 124.4 cm (49 inches)
I think maybe a correction is needed?
Thank you.
BetaBinaryBrick
|
The dimensions you see in the catalog for sets are the dimensions of the box,
not the built model itself.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 02:47 | | Subject: | A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 211 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Today we added a somewhat historic entry to the BrickLink catalog:
At first it looks like a normal Duplo plate, but it's not:
The first Duplo plates and tiles were based on the regular Lego plate/brick ratio
of 3:1 (that is, it takes 3 plates stacked on each other to reach the height
of a single Lego brick).
Somewhere around 1992, these "thin" plates and tiles were abandoned for the "thick"
type, which have a 2:1 ratio. These are what we find in modern Duplo sets.
What prompted the change? It could have been the advent of the 6309 printed tile:
Here are some other early "thin" Duplo parts:
* | | 3808 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) Half Circle with 2 Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
* | | 4121 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) with 4 Center Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
and maybe even this:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2019 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: sw695 is now sw0695 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | Yes but why?
In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | They've changed the SW minifig numbering system & I'm not sure why...?
In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | Happened to notice this was changed between the time I downloaded my inventory
and the time that I tried to upload new parts. Weird.
|
|
Hello,
It's to sort the minifig:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1124573
-Fred
|
|
It's because the number of unique sw figures has gone over 1000 so that people
can sort by itemID so now the battle droids will still show up first if sorted
that way.
They are lucky (and I mean, I'm lucky) that I wasn't uploading a ton
of sw minifigs.
I download my inventory and use VLOOKUP functions to find inventory locations
if a part I'm listing already exists in my inventory. I didn't notice
the change until I went to upload and it was consolidating on me. Luckily, it
was just the one star wars figure this time.
It would be nice if they handled something like this during the 10 minute down
time period instead of just willy nilly ...cough....cough... admin...cough russel
lol, just playin. Thanks for your contributions and dedication!
|
Yeah, there's no great time to do something like this since nightly and monthly
maintenance locks everybody out, including me.
But a couple of things to note - no old number was reused by another minifig.
So there should be no accidental mislistings as a result. The other thing is
that there is a permanent record of item number changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewYear=&viewMonth=&viewGeDate=&q=&viewStatus=A&itemType=&viewAction=I
And each catalog detail page has a log at the bottom showing changes to that
entry.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2019 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog: Sets: Ninjago: 30534-1 Ninja Workout | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mylego4all writes:
| | Hello,
This item was entered in by Hygrotus added this item to the catalog on Dec 25,
2018, and is still PENDING APPROVAL.
Do you know how long it takes for approval. I have some of these I would like
to put up for sale.
Thanks
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2019 23:15 | | Subject: | Re: Wrong Decorated panel for set 6361-1 | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| I have removed the section in Catalog Help that discouraged the submission of
SOA (sticker over assembly) parts. All legitimate stickered assemblies will now
be accepted, including those where the sticker is the only point of connection.
| | In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:
Hello,
Something is wrong with inventory of set
My stickers do not correspond to catalog sticker sheet
is it multiple version? I have the same number 190145 on my stickers
As you can see at the attached picture (this picture is not from my set) the
stickers is the same as this part.
The Arrow is "Left Pattern" on both parts.
If we say the stickers is only attached on "Panel 1 x 4 x 3"
Do need I add a new part:
"Panel 1 x 4 x 3 with Box and Arrow Left Pattern (Sticker) - Set 6361"
Or we modify
- To remove note (both parts are the same on set 6361-1)
- To change set on part name
PS: I hope you can understand what I have in my mind
-Fred
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2019 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: Question for processing | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, pitterdrei writes:
| | Hello,
in certain Lego bricks, single row, e.g. No .: 3004, 3009, 3010 etc. are there
in the inner "pins" which made of solid material and which with hole - is a distinction
here or is this neglected in the item description?
Would appreciate an answer very much
greetings
pitterdrei
|
No, the BrickLink catalog does not distinguish between a hollow vs solid pin,
but you are free to add such information to your listings.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| |
Is this supposed to be the entry for the complete set of 12 unique Unikitty collectible
minifigs? This whole entry is very confusing. The name says "complete random
set" and also "1 minifigure". The inventory shows 12 unique figs. Which is
it: a random set of 12? One random figure? A complete set of all the figs?
The price guide doesn't help much: the average prices seem too low for a
set of 12 and too high for a single fig. Judging by the individual prices it
appears that some sellers are treating this entry as a single random fig and
others are treating it as a a set of 12.
|
This is a known problem. This entry is *supposed* to be for ONE complete minifigure
(randomly chosen from the available 12), but because we do not have an entry
type for the complete set of 12 minifigures (yet), some sellers use this entry
type for that purpose as well.
|
Can we get a note on this entry that explicitly states this? As I noted above
the name is misleading as is the image showing all 12 figures.
|
I've added the note to this entry and will add similar notes to other entries
later. One of the other things I'm planning on doing is coming up with an
image that more clearly shows the random nature of the entry, e.g. an image of
the foil pack with a large question mark over it. If someone wants to give this
a shot, we will try a different image and see if that improves things.
| | | | The drawback of creating another entry type is that we already have multiple
ways these are sold, and we are concerned that it might add to the confusion:
|
It certainly wouldn't be more confusing than this entry as it currently stands.
| |
| | Am I better off creating a super lot if I want to sell a complete set of 12?
|
The site officially discourages sellers from using superlots for any purposes.
|
It does? Why? This is the first I have heard this. Is this stated somewhere?
|
| | I understand that some people abuse the superlot function by listing one item
for $0.01 and the others at an outrageous price. I have never done this and
I have sold several superlots at fair, discounted prices. If BrickLink doesn't
like super lots it should disable that feature.
|
Apparently there was a serious problem with people abusing the feature in connection
with Easy Buy, so superlots are now hidden unless buyers opt to see them. Superlots
have never been a favorite thing for a long time, probably because they are so
awkward to work with. But the site doesn't want to just cut things from people's
stores, either, so the feature has been left there for buyers and sellers that
want it.
| | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| |
Is this supposed to be the entry for the complete set of 12 unique Unikitty collectible
minifigs? This whole entry is very confusing. The name says "complete random
set" and also "1 minifigure". The inventory shows 12 unique figs. Which is
it: a random set of 12? One random figure? A complete set of all the figs?
The price guide doesn't help much: the average prices seem too low for a
set of 12 and too high for a single fig. Judging by the individual prices it
appears that some sellers are treating this entry as a single random fig and
others are treating it as a a set of 12.
|
This is a known problem. This entry is *supposed* to be for ONE complete minifigure
(randomly chosen from the available 12), but because we do not have an entry
type for the complete set of 12 minifigures (yet), some sellers use this entry
type for that purpose as well.
The drawback of creating another entry type is that we already have multiple
ways these are sold, and we are concerned that it might add to the confusion:
| | Am I better off creating a super lot if I want to sell a complete set of 12?
|
The site officially discourages sellers from using superlots for any purposes.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Parts for 42095-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, xosofox writes:
| | Hi,
as I understand, parts lists for products need to be added and approved.
I'm missing the parts for 42095-1 Stunt Racer. And if they are not yet added,
I'd like to contribute.
Or can I see somehow if the list is already submitted and needs approval?
|
You may start here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvAdd.asp
There are links on that page to the instructions. Be sure you use Manual Upload,
and take advantage of the autofill when the screen pops up. Any other questions,
please ask.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Correct handling of 18904c01pb01 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | My question was not related to part-out but about consistency between the inventories.
Isn't that important?
/Jan
|
Hi Jan,
tEoS is correct. This is an exception (for modern inventories only) that stems
from the current limitations of the BrickLink partout feature. Dinosaurs from
the Jurassic World sets fall into the same category. Once the partout feature
is upgraded, we will move all of these animals to the counterpart section where
they really belong.
| | | | Unfortunately, counterparts don't display on the part-out page. Until that
is changed I think things like this must be left as is.
In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | Please take a look at:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=18904c01pb01&in=S
The crocodile consists of 4 parts and doesn't come assembled (at least not
in set 60157 which I just parted out). So isn't the correct way to include
the four parts in the inventories and the complete assembly as a counterpart
for all sets in the above list?
/Jan
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2019 14:25 | | Subject: | Re: Lego 2018 Employee parts | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Ricardo_Penguin writes:
| | In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories, Ricardo_Penguin writes:
| | Hi, here's the part list for set 4002018-1 if someone would like to add the
pieces.
Looks like the only new pieces are the Figure Torsos and Santa's printed
face piece.
The set also comes with 4 instruction booklets. I also have a photo of the figures
someone if someone could add them to the catalog.
(There are 7 photos total)
Thanks
|
Do you have an original copy of the set?
|
Yes
|
If you opened it when it was sealed and have been careful with the parts, you
could do the inventory yourself and use Sealed Set Contents as the source.
Most of the data is autofilled for you when you use the "Manual" form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvAdd.asp
After that it's just a question of adding some minifigs and extras, and checking
the inventory against the parts that actually came in your set.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2019 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Lego 2018 Employee parts | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Ricardo_Penguin writes:
| | Hi, here's the part list for set 4002018-1 if someone would like to add the
pieces.
Looks like the only new pieces are the Figure Torsos and Santa's printed
face piece.
The set also comes with 4 instruction booklets. I also have a photo of the figures
someone if someone could add them to the catalog.
(There are 7 photos total)
Thanks
|
Do you have an original copy of the set?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2019 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: New items not in the catalogue | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, DarylB writes:
| | Please could you tell me how to add new items to the catalogue, in particular
how to allocate a 'pb' number to the part number for parts that are printed
or stickered. Thank you. Regards Daryl.
|
Thanks, Daryl.
Here is the reference page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
For patterned (pb) parts, all parts of the same mold are grouped together and
numbered sequentially. To see the latest additions, simply search by item number,
using the part number plus the "pb" plus an asterisk wild card (*), e.g. 3001pb*
Then sort the search results by item number, with the direction "down". See the
images attached below.
If you can't figure it out, please submit the item anyway with whatever item
number you can, and we will make the correction for you. A good image is really
the thing we are after the most.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 857-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 3 Part 3739 Light Gray Wheel 24 x 43 Technic
* Delete 3 Part 3740 Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic
* Add 1 Part 3736 Light Gray Technic, Steering Pulley Large
* Change 3 Part Light Gray 3739c01 Wheel 24 x 43 Technic with Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic (3739 / 3740) {Counterpart to Regular}
|
These big wheels came assembled in these early technic sets as the design of
the box confirms this too.
|
Yes, they came assembled in the sets, but this was for display purposes. In the
instructions it is very clear that they are considered separate parts. As per
the rules, this means they should not be listed assembled in BrickLink inventories:
Part Assemblies - Part assemblies should be included in the Regular Items section
of set inventories only when the assemblies in question come pre-assembled in
the set box. For example, 2429c01 should be included in set inventories rather
than 2429 and 2430. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as certain large
animal assemblies. Another exception is when an item is pre-assembled for the
purpose of box display.
| | I owned this set in my childhood and one light gray 3736 was included. At the
time, I thought this part was included for adding a motor to the second motor.
See photo attached. But I didn't know the inventory of 960 or 870 motor sets
and this part was also included there.
|
I also owned this set and did not have an extra steering wheel (that I can remember).
The steering wheel shown in the instructions comes from the motor pack.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 02:21 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Well, now I can understand why the StormChaser is confused.
If the large image slot is going away, and the large images are going to then
slot into what now is the small slot...
...and I get keeping the small slot because the small slot had ALL colors of
a piece where the large slot typically had one "representative" image per piece
and not per color...
...then I think the solution would be to leave the small images as they were
(as those were the large images slotted down into the small slot) and change
the credit to the appropriate contributor.
If I understand the plan, which I may not, and apparently is also not clear to
more than just me, the plan is to replace all the small images with large images
as they become available. You're keeping the small slot because that slot
is already prepped to contain multiple colors of a piece where the large slot
is not...and you have small images of more pieces than you have large images.
I imagine that you'd lose ~70% of the images if you kept the large set and
abandoned the small set...because you don't have all colors in the large
set.
Right? So I can see the logic of that strategy.
|
Yes. Essentially, that is it.
| | Still.
That leaves me with these questions:
1. Why plug my small images back into the small slot? Why not leave the large-image-put-into-the-small-slot
(as this is the goal) and change the contributor? Seems like you're going
to have to go back and do that at some point.
|
There are two different banks of "small" images. There is the original bank which
contains your small images, and this is where the credit on those minifig small
images came from. The images from this bank still show up in Forum macro tags
and other older pages. They are fixed at 80 x 60, and we have no mechanism to
change them, other than if we reupload an image as the main image, and then new
thumbnail will be written over the old one.
The other bank of "small" images can be larger than even the original "large"
image, and the original "large" image was copied into this slot in the case of
minifigs, sets, etc. (basically, anything that could not have images in multiple
colors). When this copy script was run (this was a one-time function), the credit
was NOT transferred.
In cases where the large and small image were the same, or the large and small
images both had the same contributor, there was (and is) no attribution issue.
But there is an issue with large/small pairs that had different contributors.
And fortunately that is not typical.
The whole rationale behind this image unification is because the management does
not like the disconnect between a thumbnail image that shows one thing and a
large image that shows another. It is fine to have a thumbnail that shows only
a portion of the large image. But jumping to an entirely new image is considered
non-standard and distasteful.
| | 2. All the legs images in question are recent contributions, and while they may
have slotted into the small slot correctly, that doesn't answer why the large
images are getting mis-attributed. And will the mis-attribution continue?
|
There is no attribution issue with the legs images. You are just interpreting
the credits wrongly. However, because your images are in almost every case superior
to what we have, and because we prefer photos for printed parts, I uploaded your
images to both the old and the new slot and put all other images in the additional
images slot.
So right now, all catalog detail pages of those printed leg parts will show your
username under both small and large credits. But when the large image credit
slot is replaced by the additional credit slot, then the person who submitted
the primary additional image (the "default" additional image, if you will) will
have their username there instead, in cases where there is an additional image.
| | 3. Are there other images in the system that are similarly mis-attributed?
|
As I mentioned in another post, there are thousands of images attributed to "Admin"
that belong to other people. We change the credit when they are claimed.
Other than that, I am sure there are plenty of cases where someone helped another
upload an image and the credit never got correctly assigned. Or sometimes a user
tweaks an image an reuploads it under their account - normally in that situation
we will credit the original user, but I'm sure there have been cases where
it didn't happen.
In short, in a database this size, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot
of errors with attribution, just like there are a lot of errors in other areas.
| | 4. I probably do have large images of many pieces for which previously there
were only small slots. However, in the case of the small minifig images in question
here, those large images were uploaded to the system at one time and rejected
in favor of another (usually existing) image for whatever reason. If they were
rejected before, why would I bother to go through the effort of finding all these
things and upload them to have them be rejected a second time?
|
It's hard for me to understand why an image of yours would get rejected,
but it does appear that in each of these cases, your small image (80 x 60) was
approved but your full size one wasn't.
These are all minifig images, so perhaps they didn't show the minifig built
exactly the right way, or didn't show front and back. The images could have
been rejected for any number of reasons.
However, a couple things have changed dramatically in the catalog since you uploaded
these images the first time. First, we have an additional image slot and we are
not afraid to use it. So if a good image comes in, we don’t have to completely
throw out someone else’s image to use yours.
The second thing that has changed is that high quality images with a white background
are greatly preferred over standard shots. Nice images were always appreciated,
but the emphasis was on correctness, not visual appeal.
So for example, the first minifig on the list currently has a large image showing
the neckpiece removed from the minifigure so as to show the printing on the torso.
In the past it was considered more desirable to be explicit about all details
of the figure, but now the emphasis is on a presentation of the minifigure that
will help sell it to today’s consumer.
So in short, we think that your previously rejected images would stand a good
chance of being accepted today. And when in comes to parts, you have many, many
80 x 60 images in the BL system that could easily be upgraded to a larger size.
| | I hope everyone understands I'm dispassionate about having my images included.
It's not an ego thing. I am concerned that I and other contributors are doing
what amounts to quite a bit of work, and there's a bug or flaw in the system
somewhere...or some bit of information hasn't been communicated appropriately...and
this problem persists, which may result in you having to go back to the contributors
and ask for a re-upload, and so on. And we're all chasing our tails. And
each other's tails.
In any event, I appreciate your efforts here. But you'll understand my reluctance
to comb through the back catalog of images I've created (or create new) and
upload them and so on without some assurance that they're going to be managed
efficiently and appropriately. I just see no sense in adding load to an existing
problem and I'd guess you don't want to be constantly manually fixing
all of it.
Thanks for the "fix" but I'm just not sure that the "why"...the reason for
things being out of whack...have been addressed as you shared no comment on that.
|
I understand the concern about mismanagement of images. But the site has actually
not lost anything or corrupted it. The attribution problems with certain minifig
images are all going to get ironed out anyway as we prepare to deprecate the
large image slot. If anything, we need to update the way credits are shown, and
make sure that contributors know exactly why an image is rejected.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Happy New Year to you as well! I'll answer these questions and those in the
other post directly. I appreciate the detective work you have put into this so
far.
In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Happy New Year.
This image discrepancy thing does appear throughout the catalog.
It looks like any time there was a condition where the large image contributor
and the small image contributor were not the same, the large image contributor's
large image has slotted into the small image contributor's small image gallery.
At least one of mine is in Randy's gallery, a number of other people's
images are in Jen's gallery...it goes on.
|
The problem of attribution has been an issue for a long time. The site's
founder had attribution issues due to the credit system not being in place before
the site started accepting images. So we now have thousands of images credited
to "Admin" that really belong to someone else. Whenever people claim them we
tag the image with the username.
However, there are some new issues as well that stemmed from transferring large
banks of images to different slots for what is known broadly as the "image project",
the goal which was to unify the large and small image system to a single primary
image for each item (or color of each item) and use the additional image slot
for cases where more images were considered useful.
Like I said earlier, I wasn't here when most item types were transferred
over, so I don't know the exact procedure that was used. I only worked with
parts and I did them all manually.
But I have observed that for other item types like minifigs, the username was
not transfered when an image was copied to a new slot. So the old username is
paired with a "new" image. That is where the problem lies, and you are correct
- we need to do something about this.
| | I have a suspicion there's some other related gremlin somewhere in the works,
but I can't fathom it other than to note that sometimes the large images
are also somehow awry.
|
Regarding current manual functionality that admins use on a daily basis, we do
have some quirks backstage still that need to be ironed out. But none of these
involve attribution problems and overall it is very reliable when used in a specified
manner.
I can see where it appears to be credited to you, but actually it isn't.
See image 1. Image 2 shows the view from the admin page, and image 3 shows the
credits on the old colors page.
It depends where you navigate from. I personally do not like dynamic content
like this (I would rather it show the same view always, regardless of where someone
came from.) But this at some point was determined to be more helpful to new users,
so this is what we have.
Sometimes the large image space is empty depending on the device you are using.
I notice this when using my phone, and people have reported similar problems
with tablets. That is a bug and I'll write it up if I can reproduce it. I
suspect it is a cache issue.
I have added screenshots for this as well (see images 4 and 5). Medium Blue is
currently the default. Your red image is the Legacy image.
This is an excellent example of the catalog image system in flux. For this part
a decision needs to be made whether we consider it a "standard part" or an "early
variant". Because the variant differences can be seen so clearly from renders
and because the differences are great enough that this may not even qualify as
a "variant", I would consider this to be a borderline situation - hence why a
decision has not been made yet.
If we go with "standard part", then the preferred color images will be renders.
I would then trim the current images so they are optimized for showing in small
spaces (or accept replacement renders from someone who routinely makes these
sorts of adjustments) and I would move your image (red photo) to the additional
images section, which retains all credit and color info on the admin page. The
Legacy Image would then be replaced by the render in the default color to prepare
for the eventual deprecation of the Large/Legacy image slot.
If we go with "early variant" I would copy your image to the red color image
slot and select red as the default color. Then, as photos are submitted, they
would replace the renders that current occupy most color slots. The renders may
or may not be retained in the Additional Images section. When the Legacy Image
slot is retired, your red image in the Legacy slot would be removed (we never
actually delete things) but it would be retained in the color images section
at full size.
The Legacy image credit at the bottom of the page will be changed eventually
to Additional image credit, and additional image credits will also be shown on
other pages.
I have gone ahead and just changed the default color to Tan and copied your image
into the Tan slot. There is no reason to have the white image as default when
it is only 80 x 60 and has a non-white background.
You also have a Light Gray image for this part that is 80 x 60, but if you submitted
a larger size of that image, we would use that in place of the current default
color because it only shows one of the part.
In general, we want single item photos for the color slots to avoid any confusion
as to how many items the buyer will get. Multiple item / comparison images are
best suited as additional images where people can study them.
Another thing we could do is crop out one of the engines in your photo for the
color image and then use the full two-item image as an additional image.
But all of these adjustments take time and it's going to be a while before
we get all the images the way we want them. And a lot of it depends on the images
we receive in the meantime.
| | I thought the attribution dynamically changed on this page when you changed the
selected color of the piece from the popdown, but right now I can't find
where that's happening...
|
No, the credit information is static and a direct copy from the old catalog detail
page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=30358&useold=Y
| | but it may be effected with some pieces and not
others. In any event, the behavior on this page is inconsistent and seems to
have something to do with whether or not there's a "default" small image...which
is probably a misnomer. For example, as far as I can tell there are no "small"
images for
* | | 650 Hinge Coupling Nylon - Two Connected 2 x 2 Plates
Parts: Hinge |
Can't figure out how to back-trace any of these pictures to their creators...
...hmm...guessing that the large image attribution is for whatever image occupies
that second vertical thumbnail position there...
|
Yes, the second thumbnail position shows the Legacy/Large Image. Image 6 shows
what is behind the scenes for this part. You can't see the additional image
credit yet from any public page, but we of course want that to change.
| | Some of this might just be a UI problem where something isn't coded properly,
and with the 53588pb01 I doubt there is a gray version at all, just a dbg (this
was hashed about in the forum not too long ago).
|
We have left the other image in the Dark Gray slot until the inventories get
corrected. One way to accelerate action on an issue like this is to submit inventory
changes for the part - DG to DBG. Then it will be in a queue somewhere.
| | Anyway, I've spent about as much time as I care to looking at this issue.
All I really know is something or things has gone wrong somewhere, and I suggest
you want to sort it out before any more images get put into the system and possibly
mispositioned.
Also, I don't want to be wrongly credited for someone else's contribution.
That's just not right.
You and the StormChaser may want to consider holding off adding any new images
until you can sort out what's going on.
|
So there are two elements here. First, the general everyday work that is being
done to transform the system from the old version to the new version. This work
is going along fine and there is no reason to believe that ultimately credits
will accidentally be given to the wrong person.
The second issue is the large-scale imports/transfers/overwrites (whatever you
wish to call them) that were done between June of 2016 and May of 2017. These
were one-time actions and will not be repeated. So whatever went wrong with the
credit tranfer will not happen again. All that is left at this point is for someone
to go back and clean up the issue.
Now that this second issue has surfaced as a problem, I will need to add it to
the list of things to accomplish in the larger image project. I'll let you
know when I have fixed the images related to your username and hopefully we'll
see how to do a clean sweep to fix those for other users as well.
Again, thanks for your time spent finding what was wrong and writing it up. It
makes a big difference to have people actively working with us to solve stuff
that needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 00:07 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.
Kevin1990
|
[p=970c00pb099]
[p=970c00pb075]
[p=970c00pb195]
[p=970c00pb337]
(red)
| |
And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
[m=cty057]
[m=sw016]
[m=sw049]
| |
(I thought the whole "small image" thing was kaput some time last year...no?)
If this is human error, that's one thing. If there are systemic issues or
database corruption or something else going on, then it probably should be looked
into before it gets worse.
|
Thanks for reporting this. We want to hear from people when things don't
seem right!
Regarding the first batch (minifigure legs), all of your images were indeed stored
in the "small image" slot, which is good, because the large image slot will be
going away. But I just went through these and added your images to the large
image slot for the time being so people will see them everywhere.
There is no problem with the system with this first batch. This is a simple question
of temporary assignment. I had planned to completely hide the large image credit
at this point, but as long as it's still around, we'll try to keep both
slots updated.
The second batch is more troubling. Before I took the reigns of the image project
in May of 2017, there were several attempts to solve some image issues an "easier"
way (i.e. not through the regular upload forms). This resulted in some unexpected
and often unfortunate situations, and it is a prime example of why I am very
reluctant to recommend ANY automatic processes when handling BrickLink's
data.
The images you see (all minifigures) are indeed not yours, but I believe your
username was attached to that slot because at one time you did have an image
there, probably a replacement image for the image now present.
I don't know if you keep files of your submitted images. I know many users
don't, but I still recommend it in case there is an issue like this. But
if you do have such a record, please check if you have images for any minifigures
in the list you provided.
If you do have them, please upload and we will correct the situation through
the regular forms. If not, I will try to find the images on an older version
of the site and I'll take care of it manually.
I'll check all these entries again, but I believe I have taken care of all
username issues you have presented today.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Dec 18, 2018 09:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 40388-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, pikachu3 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Very Light Bluish Gray to Light Aqua} 20375 Mini Doll, Cape Cloth, Friends, Tapered with Curved Bottom and 1 Small Top Hole
Comments from Submitter:
VLBG has been retired for a while. https://brickset.com/sets/40388-1/Mini-Doll-Dress-Up-Kit
|
There is a lot messed up in the catalog with this cape and some others. This
request will take a little time to sort out. Thanks for your patience.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I added the cape in that color because it was a dead-on match to VLBG, but I
think it's better to go with the official Lego color in this case, at least
until we come up with a better solution.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
OK, I spent a number of hours on this one, so here goes! 
This one is tough as there are two possible scenarios that I have come down to
with everything that I could find out about this set:
Scenario 1:
The set contained four plant stems and *at least* four sets of red flowers. Evidence
to suggest this are the box photos showing four sets of stems/flowers, the instruction
manual showing four sets of stems/flowers being built, and the photo of the sealed
set which you posted that definitely shows *at least* four sets of red flowers.
The current inventory contains four plant stems but only contains three sets
of red flowers. In this scenario, the inventory should be updated to have four
sets of red flowers with no extra.
|
I would think this option is closest to the truth. We don't really have a
sealed source available, and we would need several of those showing that the
parts never came. There would be no reason for Lego to take a set of flowers
out of a set. They weren't running out of them and they are a fairly standard
part.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
Why would you want to do that?
I agree that it would be better to have images, but why would anyone want to
remove information from our database unless the parts do not actually exist?
There are better solutions than deleting items.
|
If, with all the resources we have on BrickLink (and by "resources" I mean people
with knowledge and extensive collections), we can't generate an image or
at least some interest in an item during a period of over 9 years, there is serious
doubt in my mind if that item does actually exist.
I'm saying this specifically concerning Modulex, because I believe many of
those entries were created based on their presence in a catalog from which special
orders could be placed. If no one ever ordered a certain font in a certain color,
would these letter tiles ever have been produced?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | Question for the catalog team.
Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
Thank you
|
The first two images show dealer catalogs similar to:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 21:42 | | Subject: | Re: Please Allow Alternate Item Numbers for Books | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I looked through the open catalog requests and there doesn't seem to be one
for this. It could be a site development issue, but I'm not sure so I'm
making it a catalog request.
|
| | There are 3,000 books in the catalog and volunteers willing to do a little work
to make those entries more complete. It won't be so easy if we wait to add
the alternate item number field until we have two or three times that many books
(or more) in the catalog.
Thank you for considering this request.
|
This suggestion has now been implemented.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 02:46 | | Subject: | Re: Unofficial LEGO color guide | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, pikachu3 writes:
| | In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| | In Catalog, Abels_Bricks writes:
| | I did read the reviews but I managed to get it new from amazon for £6.07 hardcover,
I wanted it for the color definitions and general info not really for the photos.
|
Did you know about this site?
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
nordbart
|
It's not a terrible book (and I think he has a new edition coming with better
printing), but he doesn't credit the people who worked to research and compile
this color data in the first place.  It's nifty that he used a colorimeter
but the rest of the information is freely available online.
I can't complain too much, it's not as if I've updated my own list
recently. Need to get on that...
|
If there is a new edition in the works, I would encourage the author to proofread
ALL the reference numbers in the book. There are four different numbering systems
used, and the current edition looks as if there were substantial changes made
to one part of the book (the part with all the photos) without updating some
of the reference pages (the color group comparisons at the beginning).
For example, if you look up Orange on p. 7, it says "Bright Orange 40". "40"
does not correspond to any number for Orange - it is not a BrickLink ID or LEGO
ID, not an Unofficial Color Guide ID, or an Unofficial Color Guide page number.
It would also help to remove all BrickLink Color ID numbers. The only purpose
they have is to show the order in which the colors were added to the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 107-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Milky White 3706 Technic, Axle 6 {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 3 to 3}
* Change 2 Part Black 3706 Technic, Axle 6 {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 3 to 3}
* Change 1 Part White 996bc96gray Electric, Wire 4.5V with four Light Gray 1-prong Connectors with Cross-Cut Pin, 96 Studs Long {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 2 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
Wire 996bc96gray was found in a sealed set 107-1 together with black technic axles.
|
The Milky White axles were the first to be found in this set. Black axles were
not available until 1977. Also, I do remember them distinctly in this set, since
these were the among the only white axles I had growing up.
I do believe we are keeping the early variant as Regular except for unusual circumstances
where the variant was clearly a leftover outlier.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 3627-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Randy what your thoughts about it?
|
I did a lot of my own research last night on this set, and I pretty much came
to the same conclusions as you. I could not find any real good proof, just a
bunch of used sets and box images. I think it is highly likely that the set did
come with two sets of red flowers and five stems, but I just wish I could prove
that assumption a bit better. As it stands, I cannot, so I am leaning towards
no changes to the inventory unless someone steps forward with some better proof.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Glad that we agree
So lets only wait two-three days maybe somebody could provide here better prove
if not request will be reject.
|
I have uploaded two images cropped from original images at Brickset. The first
is from a catalog and it shows that there are three clusters of flowers - two
stacked and one single. Each stacked cluster has one stemfull of white flowers
and one stemfull of red flowers.
Looking at other Fabuland sets, each stem used in a set always had three of the
same color of flower. The "stacking" feature of these flowers was undoubtedly
engineered into the parts because stacked flowers were used from the very beginning:
Because of the spacing between the flowers, they alternated lower / upper / lower
/ upper, etc when the stems were stacked. So if the stems each had a full complement
of a different color, the colors would also alternate, which is what we see in
the first image.
The second image is the box cover, but it's a bigger image than the one upthread
and easier to see. I have labeled all the flowers and stems.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, if I were to supply images of all of the unreleased BASF and Bayer 3001's
that I have on my colour palette, they would be accepted?
|
I imagine those would be for this catalog entry, right?
I don't know of any reason why we would not accept additional photographs
for that catalog entry.
|
You are right, because I can see that all of them except 1 are renders, so they
need to be removed! 
Paul
|
Actually, that is an exception. I have archived all the original 2 x 4 brick
renders from the early days of the site and used them as the images for this
entry.
Part of the reason is because this is an exceptional undetermined entry by its
very nature, and sellers should upload custom photos for each lot. One photo
per color cannot cover all the possible variations of this entry.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Images to be deleted
* | | 2362 Panel 1 x 2 x 3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Panel
Marked for Deletion |
All of them (16)
* | | 4864 Panel 1 x 2 x 2 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Panel
Marked for Deletion |
All of them (20)
* | | 4215 Panel 1 x 4 x 3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Panel
Marked for Deletion |
all of them (20)
Dark Grey
Green
Red
White
Brown
Tan
Green
Yellow
Very Light Grey
Dark Grey
Orange
Dark Turquoise
These cannot be removed as yet as they still appear in 5 inventories.
All of them (15)
|
Listings for sale under an undetermined entry still need images. This is a technicality
because of the transition - these are still be considered "known" colors due
to inventories that contained the specific variants.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | A new catalog project has begun:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As you can see, the (Other) project is now complete and LordSkylark's project
is temporarily on hold.
The fifth catalog project is to remove images which are renders and which show
parts which do not exist in the colors shown. There are estimated to be 1,600
of these renders left in the catalog and there is no easy way for me to locate
them.
I would imagine the majority of them are for basic, undecorated parts. Please
post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors. I will review the findings and remove the renders where
appropriate. Please note that this project will not be removing any actual
photos of parts.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
So basically at this stage, if a part does not appear in an actual set, then
bricklink wants an actual physical photo to verify that it does in fact exist?
|
Absolutely.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2018 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Try that again | | Viewed: | 102 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | - Not swure thie is correct in the catalogue. In all 3 sets that
it comes in there is an white rubber band which holds the two halves
together. The instructions show the rubber band being used in each case. Should
there be an inventory for the part?
|
As currently set up in the catalogue 29112pb01 is for 1 piece i.e. half of the
assembly and the band is just another separate part. For an assembly the inventory
would need to be 2 x 29112pb01 plus one band but typically assemblies like this
are not catalogued.
Robert
|
Hi Robert - I thought there was all this talk and discussion about assemblies
a short time ago and that has changed but I will bow to your knowledge and separate
them out.
|
Not sure about that discussion but thinking about it the picture may confuse
some buyers into thinking they get 2 halves when ordering 1.. so I'm going
to make that clear in our description.
Robert
|
I've added a Lego render showing just the one part to avoid confusion. You
may need to do a hard refresh to see the new image.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 2, 2018 19:51 | | Subject: | We have a new Inventories Admin | | Viewed: | 212 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello again everybody,
We mentioned last week that we were looking for a new Inventories Admin, and
I'm announcing today that we have appointed Randy (user randyf) to this position.
Randy is a very well-known contributor to the catalog, a frequent participant
in Forum discussions, and pretty much a person we couldn't imagine BrickLink
being without. He has contributed a large number of color-adjusted Lego part
renders which have helped define the look of BrickLink for the next generation.
And his work with PCCs is unmatched.
We are pleased and excited to extend these admin privileges to Randy and to welcome
him to our admin team.
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon" | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | This leads me to a suggestion for Bricklink.
|
If you have any suggestions which involve site functionality (meaning things
which need to have code written for them), then you will need to post it under
the Suggestions topic as a separate post.
|
I would contest this. Any significant changes to the catalog structure which
have the potential to disrupt store operations should be reviewed to assess the
effect of those changes. Consideration and mitigation of any undesriable effects
should take place without members having to suggest it. That may be beyond the
purview of a catalog admin, and if so it seems the catmins should be working
with the site developers.
The intention here is to remove the "other" category and while I don't necessarily
have a problems with that I also do not want to come home one day and find that
my meticulously organized inventory is now out-of-sorts because of a catalog
change.
Comments like "I have no idea" (in response to how many parts will be affected)
and "I have no idea...how disruptive it will be" from a catmin are somewhat alarming
to me. I appreciate the work you guys do but please do not make it more difficult
to operate a store here.
|
We have good people working on this, and it will all be authorized by the site.
You have nothing to worry about.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: This item has already been reserved by member | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, _djm writes:
| | In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories, _djm writes:
Yes, I tried to inventory this some time back and got the same message. If I
remember correctly, I reported it as a bug and was told it had been fixed.
|
The bug preventing it from being inventoried is fixed, but reserving the item
still has the bug. The reserve function I believe was part of another bug report
that isn't finished yet.
But yes, it can be inventoried now, when selecting "Gear" as item type.
|
Via the https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvAddSel.asp page or elsewhere? When
I try that page and click "verify items" button, it shows me the error message
"This Gear has been reserved by and is being worked on by another member".
David
|
No this is yet another bug. I'll report it.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 30, 2018 17:36 | | Subject: | Re: Search Tool for Sets with Undetermined Pieces | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | I don't know how hard what I'm asking for is, but I've had some fun
today tracking down "undetermined" variants in sets that I have from childhood.
I'm pretty close to mining it as far as I can go, but I would certainly
consider parting out some sets from eBay with the added interest in finding the
variants. Could we have a tool that would just identify a list of sets that
contain a piece of undetermined variant?
|
To access this feature, simply go to the Advanced Catalog Search page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogSearch.asp?v=C
and click "Show More Options". At the bottom of the first row of additional options
there is a filter for all items that have undetermined parts in their inventory.
For the purposes of this filter, an undetermined part is one that has the keyword
"undetermined" it its item name.
Very useful for those on a quest to find a truly undetermined part.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 03:13 | | Subject: | Re: This item has already been reserved by member | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories, _djm writes:
Yes, I tried to inventory this some time back and got the same message. If I
remember correctly, I reported it as a bug and was told it had been fixed.
|
The bug preventing it from being inventoried is fixed, but reserving the item
still has the bug. The reserve function I believe was part of another bug report
that isn't finished yet.
But yes, it can be inventoried now, when selecting "Gear" as item type.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 01:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | | | 1) Delete all rendered part images in the catalog that don't exist as real
parts. I estimate there are about 1600 images to delete, maybe more as people
discover them.
|
|
| | I agree with all of these.
However, a question I have is:
There are lots of parts that never appeared in sets. Would we simply remove them
and wait for someone else to resubmit proof that it existed? Also, there are
a lot of bionicle parts that only appeared in random colors in certain random
bionicle part assorment kits. There are actually many pieces that would appear
in colors only in those kits, and therefore would not have been linked to any
inventory, since those kits contain random elements.
|
just the ones that don't exist at all:
sand purple
orange
brown
salmon
light salmon
earth orange
light green
medium blue
sand green
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
A couple from me:
1) Delete all rendered part images in the catalog that don't exist as real
parts. I estimate there are about 1600 images to delete, maybe more as people
discover them.
2) Add up to 75 "early" minifigs to the catalog to finally resolve the issue
of the solid stud head. We would start from 1978 minifigs and proceed forward
in time.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 18:02 | | Subject: | We have a new Catalog Admin! | | Viewed: | 296 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello everyone,
We are pleased to announce that we have made another appointment. StormChaser,
who was appointed as Inventories Administrator last year, has now been promoted
to Catalog Administrator.
This is an important step for BrickLink. We haven't had a Catalog Admin appointment
for over nine years, and this is the first time someone has moved from the Inventories
side of the system to the Catalog side.
We believe StormChaser is highly qualified for this position. In addition to
an outstanding year as an Inventories Admin, he has had years of intense experience
with every area of the BrickLink Catalog. He has made many thousands of corrections,
uploaded an enormous amount of new data, and has solved a number of LEGO mysteries
over the years. So we're very pleased he has agreed to accept this position,
and we look forward to his activity in this new area.
We will be be making another appointment soon to fill his former position as
Inventories Administrator.
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig scd010 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Metallic Gold to Tan} 90462pb03 Minifig, Headgear Headdress Mummy (Type 2) with Dark Red Stripes Thin Pattern
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1111900
Image color and PCC have been changed to tan.
|
I really think the xref should also be changed so that sellers' inventories
are not incorrect. Just making these changes leaves all inventory categorized
under a wrong color now.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I see that xref was changed already
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewActionType=X
|
Weird. Under the "Items for Sale" column in the "Color Info" tab, it still shows
"Metallic Gold" while the "On Wanted List" and "Known Colors" columns have changed.
Randy
|
It's a cache issue. When the BL system resets tonight, the Metallic Gold
will turn to Tan.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 20, 2018 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 5540-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, clien14 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Red 3794a Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper) {Regular to Extra}
Comments from Submitter:
Pop quiz: what supersecret and easy method did I use to locate this error in this inventory?
|
I am still fairly new to BrickLink, but my guess would be that there was 2 line
items for the same part that tipped you off?
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvDup.asp
One of the many tools Inv Admins can use to cull and exterminate rogue data.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 20, 2018 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 10258-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, calsbricks writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 62462 Metallic Silver Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round) (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
2 sets parted out both had metallic silver not flat.
|
This may actually be an error instead of an alternate.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2018 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7930-1 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0550 White Minifig, Head Female SW Aurra Sing, Large Green Eyes and Gray Lips Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0552 Sand Green Minifig, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Embo, Large Yellow Eyes / Black Lines Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0554 Light Flesh Minifig, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Sugi, Large Brown Eyes, Red Lips and Cheek Lines / Purple Hair Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 4)
Comments from Submitter:
This is an experiment to add heads variants currently without being connected to any minifigs or sets and being alternates to them, to sets inventories as alternate part.
More here
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1110869 and in the following answers
If nobody will be against it we will move forward with this project.
If sombeody against it please share your thoughts.
I will leave this change request open for a few days before accepting it or rejecting it.
|
There is a precedent for adding "orphaned" items to inventories. There was a
rule for a long while (that is still somewhat in place) that inventories that
spanned the 2003/2004 color change would be inventoried entirely in new colors
or old colors, but not both. This was because of the crazy number of possible
alternate matches in a set like this:
However, later there was a complaint about certain colors that should have a
presence in inventories but didn't because of that rule, so an exception
was made for orphaned parts, and you can see them in the alternates section of
the Star Destroyer inventory - mostly LBG.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2018 13:51 | | Subject: | Re: Clone Turbo Tank Instructions version 7261-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Help, Biglesdug writes:
| | In Help, mandr writes:
| | If you can't find the online instructions, I might be able to help.
Here is the first place where the different pieces are used:
About page 17, Step 16, one set of instructions uses 10 black plus 4 LBG pins
whereas the other set of instructions uses instead 12 LBG pins and 2 black pins
with stop bush. See pictures, and I'll post pictures of the next difference
in a few minutes.
|
THANK YOU! if you don't mind post pictures that would be great!
|
Both versions of instructions are available from Brickset. Here is a list of
redesigned sets with info on where to find instructions:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-18333/page-3
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2018 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9267-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | I'd give it to you, but it looks like you had one a year and a half ago and
still have it if you wanted it.
|
That's kind of you, but I do still have the one I used to make the catalog
entry. I found it in a new Duplo set from around that same time.
No instructions for the set, though? The set has an instructions entry. If
it didn't come with instructions, which certainly seems likely to have been
the case, then we need to get rid of the instructions entry for the set.
There's one seller with instructions for sale right now, but that was likely
from blindly parting out the set.
|
Yeah, no instructions. And what would the instructions say? You can't build
anything out of this without a tub of bricks.
|
The instructions entry has been removed.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2018 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: bean there donut that | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Biscuit_head writes:
| | does anyone know when there will be a catalog entry for set 40358? It's a
target exclusive that's all I know so far.
|
If you can submit a picture, we can approve it:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2018 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Changes to Hinges in Set 4546-1 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | It seems likely that the 1x2 plate came in earlier production runs of this set.
According to the catalog this is the only set from 1991 with a 2x2 top plate.
The next oldest sets with 2x2 top plates are from 1994.
|
Thank you for commenting. After reading your comment I changed the order in
which these appear in the inventory and updated the inventory note.
|
Here's a photo of the early instructions for the record:
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
For the instances of this assembly where the top color is different than the
base, do these all need to be added to the catalog individually? For example:
|
Please go here and look at the catalog items pending approval from me and the
images pending approval from me:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPend.asp
If you (or anyone else) can provide images for the ones I couldn't, then
please do.
| | Looking at it a bit further, I guess it's actually not too bad. Since the
top would be the only fixed color, there's only a max of 16 new entries that
would (currently) need to be added.
|
I only counted 14 new entries. After you take a look at what I have pending,
please let me know which two I missed.
|
I always forget about the pending catalog page. I should have realized you were
already on top of things! There's a few of them I can probably take pictures
of. I'll try and do that tonight if I can find them. I know I can at least
do the Brown one if nothing else.
I came up with 16 possible new items just by looking at the number of different
colored top plates there are. Upon further review on my part (which I should
have done originally), the Maersk and Sand Green colors are matched, so that
just leaves the 14 that you already came up with.
Josh
|
I've been on the sidelines of this issue this time around (I have previously
been right in the middle of it) but I have to mention that this little 1 x 2
hinge is something I've long thought was a worthy counterpart, because of
how many of them I have destroyed trying to get them apart:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 13:19 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Please use this thread to let us know of any other item numbers that would benefit from
such a switch.
|
and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
In both cases, the 'a' version is the newer version.
Randy
|
Thanks for mentioning those. Any more examples would be appreciated.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | ...snip ...
| |
It would be good though to notify sellers, but before doing that, there are a
handful of other item numbers that need to be switched, and we could do it all
in one go. Please use this thread to let us know of any other item numbers that
would benefit from such a switch.
|
I have never received an email from BrickLink to notify me about important changes
to part numbers.
Today I received an email from the other site about such a change:
"The mold variant description of an item that you currently have listed in
your store has been changed in the [...] catalog. As your store differentiates
mold variations, we are sending you this e-mail to let you know of the change.
Please check your inventory to see if it needs to be adjusted to list the items
against the other variation."
So I would like to bring this to the attention of BL admins: please make it happen
that when important changes in the catalogue are made a message will be sent
to all sellers that have that part in their inventory.
Thanks!
|
Traditionally a Forum message is the only notice that is given on BrickLink.
A notification system has been asked for many times but has never materialized.
But in this case I will make a special effort to notify by email everyone involved
once we collect a sizeable number of variants and switch the numbers. This may
take a couple of weeks.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 23:13 | | Subject: | Re: Change Booklet Image? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | I have sold these two Booklets:
and :
But the covers don't look like the ones shown. The c82 looks like the first
pic and the c83 like the second one.They have the right numbers on them. Should
the images be updated? I can it if it's ok, just wanted to ask first.
Donna
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This part and its accompanying variant have spelled trouble for a number of years
now in the catalog, and finally a few folks decided to do something about it:
* | | 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
First we added the definitive non-grooved variant, which turned out to be the
most recent one.
And here is the really important line in this message:
the A and B versions of this part were just switched today
So if you've labeled bags containing this variant you will need to reverse
this numbering.
Renumbering is never taken lightly, but in this case we felt we had to do it
because of 2 other entries added with nearly the same situation - early grooved
version followed by a non-grooved version. Quite the opposite from what we know
to be true with standard tiles.
Thanks for your patience. Resetting the numbers to reflect the correct chronological
order will save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.
|
I think it is not wise to put some meaning to an itemID. So the change of the
a and b version should not have happened, in my opinion. Even if in other parts
the itemIDs were assigned chronologically.
|
BrickLink ID numbers are "smart" numbers - they aren't a series of digits
randomly assigned when an entry is formed. We have those types of numbers internally,
btw, and maybe one of the things we could or should do is to make those numbers
available on the main catalog page for every entry.
The -a, -b, -c pattern is so prevalent in the catalog that even if we put a large
disclaimer on the Help pages stating that a chronological order should not be
inferred, people would still assume so. 99 percent of -a, -b, -c variants are
chronological, and it actually is a great help in giving people an instant understanding
of the relationship between variants, especially when the auto-generated dates
on the catalog page can be so misleading at times.
| | Also I think the catalog should keep the 'undetermined' versions of parts.
Because: -not all set inventories have the specified mold varients
-not all sellers want to differentiate between small mold varients, and they
should be able to (or must) list as undetermined.
-not all buyers care about the mold varient, they should be able to buy 'undetermined'.
(Ideally if you choose undetermined all versions would show up)
|
Ideally we decide as a site what we are going to distinguish and not distinguish
and every seller falls in line and helps us uphold a site-wide standard that
buyers can rely on.
The problem is that there *are* variants in the catalog that are not worth the
hassle, and over the years this has resulted in many sellers justifiably rejecting
these distinctions.
I think there is room for a middle ground where for a certain group of variants
sellers can opt to flag their listings for one variant or another, and the listings
would encompass both sellers who distinguish and others who don't.
But for the majority of parts, we need a site-wide standard. To achieve this
we need a joint effort from sellers and the catalog. On the catalog side, we
need to decommission some entries that are needlessly precise. The classic example
of that (and it has already been done) is the headlight brick with slot:
[p=4070a]
Sellers, on the other hand, need to come to the table ready to sort some variants
they may not believe in personally. A great example for that would be the standard
1 x 2 tile:
No seller should be listing the old non-grooved style mixed in with the new grooved
style. They look terrible together and the old version can be very hard to remove.
in this case, we as a site need to make a clear distinction between the old and
the new.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: Request update inventory on set 70567 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Henk61 writes:
| | In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Henk61 writes:
| | Hi,
Is it possible that the inventory of the set 70567 can be completed?
On 5 minifigs I am unable to see the parts because the "item consists of" is
not available.
|
I don't have this set, so I am unable to complete the inventory. The submitter
of the set inventory did not add inventories for any of the figures - the existing
inventories of the other figures in that set were done by five different people.
There has been some discussion behind the scenes about requiring that minifigure
inventories be completed before the set inventory is approved. However, this
is not currently a requirement.
The best I can tell you is that I will try to look at uninventoried 2018 minifigures
when I get some spare time and see what I can do about adding their inventories.
|
Hi,
Is there any chance that this set wil be updated?
|
You must mean the new Ninjago City Docks set:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2018 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | Can understand why the change
May I suggest that you send a message to everyone that has listed the variants
in case they miss or simply don’t read the forum
I know I would be frustrated if I got beg feedback or sent out the wrong parts
through no fault of my own and had to pay postage or refund to put the error
right
|
Totally agree, in this scenario I would switch all listings to undetermined,
email all affected sellers and then its the sellers choice whether to check their
varients or leave it listed as undermined
|
We can't switch everything to undetermined because many sellers have already
sorted their lots and this would undo all their work. Sorted parts will still
remain under the correct listings, so it's not a question of the listings
being changed, just a different label being used.
It would be good though to notify sellers, but before doing that, there are a
handful of other item numbers that need to be switched, and we could do it all
in one go. Please use this thread to let us know of any other item numbers that
would benefit from such a switch.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 24, 2018 19:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60034-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 4 Part Black {44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (undetermined type) to 44567a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side with Bottom Groove}
Comments from Submitter:
As said in previous ChgReq, got both types in my set.
|
Argg, of course it should be the B version as the A is already there.
|
Sorry about that:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1103684
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 24, 2018 18:37 | | Subject: | The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 277 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| This part and its accompanying variant have spelled trouble for a number of years
now in the catalog, and finally a few folks decided to do something about it:
* | | 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
First we added the definitive non-grooved variant, which turned out to be the
most recent one.
And here is the really important line in this message:
the A and B versions of this part were just switched today
So if you've labeled bags containing this variant you will need to reverse
this numbering.
Renumbering is never taken lightly, but in this case we felt we had to do it
because of 2 other entries added with nearly the same situation - early grooved
version followed by a non-grooved version. Quite the opposite from what we know
to be true with standard tiles.
Thanks for your patience. Resetting the numbers to reflect the correct chronological
order will save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 24, 2018 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Could these sticker entries be combined? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Drats. So what do you think of my solution for my listing problem: I list the
sticker under ALL of the catalog entries, but in my description, I state that
I only have ONE sticker, not 6 of them, and it can be used for any of the sets.
Lisa
|
Pick the entry where you think it has the most chance of getting sold.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Supplying a set's inventory | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Catalog Inventories, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Classicsmiley writes:
| | | | First thing: that 7-digit number is called a Part Color Code or PCC. These are
unique codes assigned by TLG which identify a particular part in a specific color.
|
For quite some time I've wondered why the term "PCC" is used on Bricklink,
instead of the LEGO-Company term "element id."
Does anyone know?
|
PCC describes the code better. The first PCC's were literally a combination
of a 4-digit part code and a 2-digit color code. Some of those original PCC's
are still being used:
3024+02
3024+21
3024+23
3024+24
The new 7-digit codes aren't "smart" like that, but they do represent the
part in a specific color, as opposed to the 5-digit mold number. PCC is easier
to read and type, too.
|
I think the question was “Why ‘PCC’ and not ‘Element ID,’ TLG’s term?”
As TLG calls PCCs “Element ID”s, the mould number being a “Design ID.”
|
PCC is more descriptive of the code than "Element ID".
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Supplying a set's inventory | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Catalog Inventories, Classicsmiley writes:
| | | | First thing: that 7-digit number is called a Part Color Code or PCC. These are
unique codes assigned by TLG which identify a particular part in a specific color.
|
For quite some time I've wondered why the term "PCC" is used on Bricklink,
instead of the LEGO-Company term "element id."
Does anyone know?
|
PCC describes the code better. The first PCC's were literally a combination
of a 4-digit part code and a 2-digit color code. Some of those original PCC's
are still being used:
3024+02
3024+21
3024+23
3024+24
The new 7-digit codes aren't "smart" like that, but they do represent the
part in a specific color, as opposed to the 5-digit mold number. PCC is easier
to read and type, too.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 15:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6545-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
The small wheels come assembled. Will post picture of sealed bag.
|
Thank you for submitting requests for these small wheels. It is Stage 4 of my
wheel project that hasn't yet been finished:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1032154
Any other requests to change small wheels to the state in which they came originally
in the set are encouraged and will be approved.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted parts in set inventory | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Bi0hazard writes:
| | In Suggestions, FCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bi0hazard writes:
| | Would it be possible, while logged in and looking at the parts inventory of a
given set, to have an indicator by any parts that are on a Wanted List?
Could really come in handy when evaluating sets for parts potential.
Thanks!
|
This feature is already available. Look for a solid red heart to the left of
each Item in a set inventory. Those are items in a wanted list.
|
Is there a setting somewhere to turn this on?
I'm not seeing it anywhere (attached screenshot, of a piece I know is on
a wanted list).
I've also played around with the different view styles on the set inventory
page.
|
View the new inventory page by clicking the Inv tab on the set entry page. See
image:
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: Just how many pieces ARE in LEGO 10214? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Catalog, SteveDJ writes:
| | I was Googling for some pictures of the LEGO Tower Bridge, set 10214. What I
find interesting, is that there are two different versions of the set BOX --
with one version showing 4287 pieces, and another version showing 4295 pieces.
The catalog entry here shows 4287. Yet, there is no supplemental information
as to what happened?
If anything, the box art WITHOUT the tree in the corner, but instead showing
the Expert label/icon, looks like the more recent box. And it is the one showing
4295 pieces.
Is the catalog entry here not up to date?
|
Take a look at the note at the foot of the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=10214-1
For more information on re-designed sets, see this Brickset Bricklist:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-18333
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Error creating inventory change request | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | I've tried creating the inventory change request shown in the attached image.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong? The system rejects my form by saying that
there's a problem with entry 4 ("Entry #4: New Match ID is same as Existing
Match ID."). But the item has no match ID yet, and the match ID I entered is
not in use yet. Is it because extras can't have match IDs?
/Jan
|
Check this inventory how it is constructed
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=79118-1
Extras can have match ID but it must be new number. and in this form you have
"3" match ID three times.
As you can see one sword w regular is conected with unique ID with altenate for
him. Extra one must have new unique ID and second alternate must be added to
match extra I hope I explained it clearly
|
More simply speaking if you want do add alternate for an extra then part must
be repeated in alternate section with new ID. One connected with regular and
one connected with extra. This is currently the only way to do it.
|
I don't understand why you state that I used match ID 3 three times. It's
only there twice in my form.
It seems to me that you're explaining exactly what I've done. I used
match ID 2 twice (one in the regular section, one in the alternate) and match
ID 3 twice (one in the extra section, one in the alternate).
/Jan
|
In my opinion there is definitly a bug in inv change request formula. You can't
add match ID to extra when this is the only change for it, but when I also change
it from extra to regular (see the first screenshot), everything went well (see
second screenshoot). So I tested my hypothesis on second extra to change (there
was change in part quantity). So I added only "4" as matching ID and see the
result on third and fourth screenshoot, the same error. So it looks like you
can't add match ID when part stays extra it must be changed from extra to
regular simultaneously.
But we can moved it back to the extra section after approving your request.
So this is the soultion for you for now. Add this change request with changing
this part also extra to regular and when approving it we will move it where it
belongs
BTW I remember that recently I had the same situation when adding my own change
request for something, the same problem, but I didn't took care much because
I could fix it after approving.
|
Originally I believe match IDs on extras were not allowed, and only recently
has this become the practice, and only in cases where the Inv Admin determines
to handle the problem in that way.
However, this is by far the trickiest form on the site and I have a request in
to remove the logic that gives error messages for duplicated data. It would be
far better if the system just ignored such data.
The ironic thing is that the form actually *requires* duplicated data with the
Item Type field. There is no need for this field as the Item Type can always
be determined from the Item Number. A request has been submitted to remove this
obstacle as well.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 14, 2018 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 140-2 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Andrews__Brick writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 3 Part 7049b White Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder Old and Trans-Clear Bottom
* Add 2 Part x486a Black Tread Small - Old - Wedge Shaped Treads (30 tread 'links'
|
That's amusing . . . the system converted a portion of the part title to
an emoticon.
What is your source for these requests for this set?
|
Robert
I suppose instructions.
There are 4 models to build:
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/
The 2nd one use 4x [p=4049b]
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/7
The 4th one use 4x
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/15
So a change is needed for the follow parts:
= from 1pc to 4pcs
= from 2pcs to 4pcs
and also the alternate
= from 2pcs to 4pcs
Stefaan
|
When this page was first written, it looked like this (see attached image). It
turned out the image wasn't the problem, but the quote-close parentheses
at the end of the item name [' )].
They were corrected simply by retyping the characters into the item name field.
We are looking for more of these quote-close parentheses cases, so if you happen
to see one that causes this problem with the macro tags, please let us know.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 10, 2018 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: Part variations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, mattkaupke writes:
| | I’ve noticed as of late that there have been some changes to the catalog resulting
in a number of my items being changed to “undetermined type”. For example 1x1x5
bricks listed as 2453 used to be hollow stud and 2453b was solid. Now 2453 is
undetermined, hollow is 2453a and solid 2453b
Is there an easy fix for this beyond manually changing each item part number?
Also, is there a list of the parts that have been changed in this way?
|
You will be notified if your store has any items that are marked for deletion.
Other than that, you may just search for the word "undetermined".
| | For the admins- is it possible for you guys to automatically do this for the
sellers when you make the changes?
|
Yes, we could move your listings, but that would defeat the whole purpose of
the transition. The hard part isn't changing 2453 to 2453a on your store
inventory page. The correct way involves physically locating all your parts in
this variant group and sorting them.
Btw, there have always been such changes in the catalog. But it is true, we have
been increasing the frequency a bit as of late.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2018 22:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6881-1 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Hi Admin_Russell,
As I had mentioned, I only had one 3942a (in any color) and it came with this
set. Why is this rejected?
|
I think you should take this as a nudge to go in a different direction. Instead
of splitting hairs over these early variants, there is a lot of basic inventory
work to do on the site, even in older inventories. Wrong quantities, wrong colors,
missing things...
If you really like variants perhaps you should start working more with newer
inventories where there is easy access to sealed contents. You may find it more
rewarding to work with first hand information.
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | From my childhood collection
Otherwise, I hope this threat doesn't get removed after few years:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1101093
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3942a White Cone 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Stud (match ID 4)
* Change 1 Part White 3942c Cone 2 x 2 x 2 - Completely Open Stud {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 4}
|
|
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
