Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 22:27 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Guidelines: Minifig Heads | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I would like to suggest the following catalog guidelines for minifig head
|
Is it too much to ask that we keep this all in one thread where I can easily
reference it? I don't mind reposting everyone's replies to the original
thread and I can go on doing it as long as need be, but it is taking time away
from approving new catalog entries which I was working on.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 20:23 | | Subject: | New Part Category | | Viewed: | 135 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Today I added a new category: Wheel, Accessory.
I moved 31 parts from Wheel to the new category.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 06:36 | | Subject: | Re: Part 35442 and 35449 name - flower or gear? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | If you look at how these parts are used, then they are actually gear wheels.
Should the name not be "Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Gear Tooth"?
|
Sure, why not. It was an easy fix. Some people in the future might not realize
they're gears and think they're flower petals, so now the titles include
both terms.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:22 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
Everything else is good.
Just to be clear, the fact that figures were incorrectly added to the catalog
was no one's fault other than my own. My job is to check things and I did
not check these things.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 23:06 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | More bad news. I just checked Lego's website for instructions and it appears
that Genji (dual-sword holder?) and Hanzo (quiver) are missing these neckgear
in their pictures here.
Also, Genji appears to have a piece that connects to his helmet.
|
Now I'm beginning to be embarrassed by my incompetence. I've fixed them:
I've also contacted anyone who has the four affected figures for sale and
alerted them of the issue. Now I'm off to review the other figures this
member has recently submitted for potential additional errors.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Overwatch Mercy & Pharah pictures wrong | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | The picture for this fig is wrong.
|
I'm confused. The figure doesn't have a picture.
Only kidding. I removed the images just now. How and why did these images get
approved?
Well, the catalog (me) is trying to be more responsive than it has in the past.
That means more and better communication with members, quicker item approvals,
and no more long queues of pending items. One of the casualties of pumping out
catalog entries is that some get in which are wrong.
I have to put some trust in members that items are submitted properly, especially
for new figures for which the assembly instructions are not always immediately
available. Sometimes that trust is repaid and sometimes it ain't. I have
a decent memory and submissions from the member who submitted these entries will
be checked carefully in the future.
It's a messier method in some ways, but I believe the benefits to members
outweigh making sure a catalog entry is absolutely perfect in every way before
approval. That's what change requests are for. This is not to say that
I don't check and occasionally reject things, of course. I'm just not
going to hold catalog entries forever, especially not desirable new items which
can easily be corrected. The inventory administrators, as Randy said, also sometimes
catch errors during the inventory process.
Having said all that, it was my fault that I approved these images/figures when
they were incorrect and I apologize for the error. I believe the instructions
were already available when I approved those figures with those images and I
neglected to download and check the set instructions regarding the correct assembly.
As you've noticed, the images are gone now.
| | This one is up to the admins. The 1st assembly shown in instructions is the
standard w/ legs. I think this version is a good addition to the catalog, but
it may not fit the catalog policies.
|
There's kinda only one CA for now, and it's me. If the figure does not
match the assembly first shown in the set instructions, then it's off to
deleteland for that figure, which is where this figure has travelled.
Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
And I seem to remember a certain person telling me that it didn't matter
if parts appeared in the N/A color. 
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: part 4073: catalog statisics mistake | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yoavheskia writes:
| | i counted only 51 known colors, not 52 as mentioned in catalog statisics.
|
That is odd. I cannot explain it. I thought the statistics were real-time data.
Even if not, I don't see any recent changes which could have caused this
discrepancy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Just thinking
it's smarter to fix the problem now before another gazillion images get posted
and end up in the wrong slot and then need to be "fixed".
|
Agreed and thank you for bringing it up. It could be human error since I approved
some of the images you mention. I'm sure Russell will shed some light on
the issue.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | you are credited with the large image.
|
| | and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
|
Oops. Other way around. Confusing, as I said, even to me.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 96 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.
|
Russell would indeed be the person to answer this, but in many cases it comes
down to the way the system is designed. On this, for example:
The legacy image is from hazelsden. The color image is from you. The color
image is shown as the primary image, which is why you are credited with the large
image. The legacy image also exists, which is why it is shown as an additional
image and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.
| | And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
Those I cannot explain.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 21:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| An anonymous person would like the following information added for review:
The additional note for
[s=yoda-1]
is too bloated since most of that information is included in the help page for
the "Cannot be Inventoried" flag. I suggest simplifying it to just "This set
is a glued model." or getting rid of the note entirely and adding "(Glued Model)"
to the set name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional note for
is unnecessary since the set name includes "polybag" and the set relationships
includes the other set. I suggest removing the note entirely.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: 2 versions of dino tail end #40379 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | There are two versions of this part where the small hole by the base varies
in location, mirrored left or right side.
|
If you'll post a comparison picture, then I'll add an additional note
to the part mentioning the difference and also add this part to our list of known
variants.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | So open mouth is ... mad face?
Weird ... ok then.
|
I did not title this figure. The person who titled the figure was a person who
had the figure in hand to see what the face actually looks like. Titles can
easily be changed and if you feel that the current title does not accurately
describe the figure, then please request a title change using this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | Not sure what needs to happen but ... that minifig should be changed.
|
These are pending and have been for some time:
[M=sw986]
[M=sw987]
[M=sw988]
What needs to happen is that someone needs to upload pictures so the figures
can be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9397-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 32523pb12 White Technic, Liftarm 1 x 3 Thick with 'UW 9397' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb012 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing Center (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb011 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing End (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Hello, friends. My name is Robert (which is a pseudonym) and I approved these catalog entries as a catalog administrator. Before I approved them I verified their existence with the set instructions.
"But, Robert," I hear you saying, "How the heckfire can we know that you didn't make an error? We've noticed that you're prone to them, you know."
Oh, so that's how it is? You want to be that way? Fine, then, go and look for yourselves. You can find the white liftarm being stickered and added on page 32 of the set instructions (the 1st of three instructions books).
The black liftarms are part of the crane assembly and they are added in the third book on page 41. Now I'm off to do something different, but don't think I won't be watching like a hawk to make sure these change requests are approved or whatever.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: 93273pb089 deletion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, phyllisw8 writes:
| | I just added a more complete and correct entry of this part as 93273pb090. 93273pb089
is currently pending approval and should either be deleted or my submitted information
from 93273pb090 be transferred to the entry.
|
I've changed your post to the Catalog topic since the Catalog Requests topic
is for me to change something in the catalog. This pending part is not yet in
the catalog.
As for correcting it, you're definitely right - it does need plenty of correcting
before it can be approved. I will get to it eventually. 
Since the other member submitted the catalog entry first, I'll probably approve
that submission after correction and remove your pending submission.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2018 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: Parts not showing on set inventory pages? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Help, normivey writes:
| | Parts that are identified as being part of a set from the parts page did not show up
in the set's inventory page.
|
Those parts appear in the inventories of figures. You can click the Break Minifigs
button at the top of an inventory page to have all the figure parts appear along
with the other items in the inventory if desired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2018 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve 30529-1 (In Hand) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand and would like to see it approved soon.
|
We have no image for this item and it will not be approved without an image.
Please upload an image.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 05:11 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
This is not a new policy, by the way. It has been around for a long time:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1022961
For the sets you mention, some will be available on the LEGO shop website tomorrow
and I'll get them approved either very late today or very early tomorrow.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | According to the newsletter of a Dutch webshop the following new sets are now
available. Please approve them.
|
Many or all of those sets have been available for a while in varying locales.
Nevertheless, we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 21:16 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | All packs were pre-made and identical with the same accessories. There was a
square display at the register filled with many of them; I did not get a count,
but lots!
And they were packaged in the same packaging used for the build-a-fig bar, so
there was no unique set number.
|
Submit the set it as a catalog entry, please. I see no problem with approving
it and its figures as catalog entries. Make up a set number and I'll modify
as necessary. Include any further notes you can in the comments section about
the availability dates, if it was available at any other locations, if it was
advertised in any way, the cost and/or circumstances for purchasing (free with
purchase?), etc.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 19:06 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig sim002 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Lime to White} 16816pb01 Minifigure, Skirt Cloth Length 10mm with Lime Print Surrounding Apron Pattern
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
|
It does. However, this item relationship match is not capable of handling complex
relationships consisting of all the parts with which an individual part will
fit and work together. It is another limitation of the system over which I have
no control.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | Would this pack count as a set? For sale at a retail store. Or, if not, would
the figs count as a catalog entry?
|
I don't see any figs in that package.
As for whether it would count as a set, you say they were all prepackaged? Were
the contents of all of them identical?
If so, then I really can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be considered
a set.
How many were for sale at that location? Was there an item number for the set?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 04:04 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I have checked the instructions of set 8667 and have come with a very solid complete
assembly with two parts.
|
Yes, you're right. For some reason I thought those were:
and I was adding in the red plate below.
| | Would this then be accepted?
|
If you look at the existing sticker over assembly parts, then you can see that
the parts for each assembly are all in the same colors (at least I believe they
are). I haven't thought about multicolored parts and how that would work.
I don't guess it wouldn't really matter all that much, but let me ponder
it for a bit. I'll get back with you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | So I tried adding a new relationship for P=3937 and P=6134 and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
|
Well, there's a problem with this new relationship type. It works great
if you only have two items, but it doesn't work well if there are multiple
items (unless they all only work with each other). So for now just send in items
which only work with each other and perhaps we can figure something out for other
things later.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Out of all the changes, only multipacks are really new.
|
No, that's not true, either. This multipack has been in the catalog since
March, 2007:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I like this new relation type very much
|
OMG, I knew you would!! I was telling everyone, "Even if no one else likes this,
at least I know David will. In fact, I think he'll like it very much."
| | but I wonder if the title will convey the intended meaning.
|
I also brought up this concern in the intensive, three-week long meeting we had
when discussing this new relationship type. You're right . . . don't
most parts fit together? Unfortunately, the meeting ended before any of us could
manufacture a more appropriate title for this relationship.
| | Would Parts that Belong Together work better?
|
I think it would. I think it so strongly that I just changed everything to this
title. If anyone asks you, though, you must tell them that I alone came up with
the title. I will deny your involvement to my dying day.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
Yes, I like it. Thanks! So, my original version:
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
Your revision:
Shows parts that were designed to naturally work with each other and are nearly
always used together as a single unit.
My revision of your revision (just cut two words and changed another word to
account for that):
Shows parts designed to naturally work with each other which are nearly always
used together as a single unit.
I've updated the guidelines with that last version.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | So would this mean that an item . . . can not be added in the catalog?
|
No. It just means that the assembly must include enough parts to be solid and
not be held together merely by the sticker. Look at this example:
[P=BA47pb02]
The sticker is only on the tiles. The complete assembly includes the underlying
4 x 12 plates to make the whole thing solid. Any assembly, of course, must match
what the set instructions show for that assembly.
For the part under discussion, it looks like the complete assembly would need
to include three other parts to be approved as a catalog entry (see the instructions
for set 8667).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I was sorting through a lot of Lego and came across an assembled item (with a
sticker holding it together).
|
| | Could you give me more info about this item and the reason it is marked for deletion?
|
I've added an additional note to this item explaining why it was marked for
deletion:
[P=BA43pb02]
Feel free to submit a new catalog entry for a similar assembly which is held
together by more than just the sticker.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2018 02:27 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? UPDATE | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Is there actually a 3626bpx28?.
|
No, there is not.
Thank you for researching this and bringing it to my attention and to axaday
for contacting sellers and to JulieK and baylit for responding with here with
evidence from their store inventories.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 19:18 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | so much for that attempt at humor
|
Sorry, didn't realize it was an attempt at humor. I've been getting
some occasionally unfriendly feedback of late and thus I've tended to assume
things are criticism unless stated otherwise.
It's funny . . . people complain about bitter, unresponsive administrators
and never think to question how that happens.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 18:06 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Oh, well. We can all ignore it and then someone else bring up the question again
in six months.
|
This is not ignoring it:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1120803
I will paraphrase what I said in that message:
If it's wrong, then let's fix it. But first, let's make sure it's
wrong by asking some sellers who claim to have the no-stubble head and figure
for sale.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Catalog lists all the "Bandit 1" as having head without stubble. However, every
instance I can find of this head in various sources all display the stubble.
|
I don't consider the original source for the inventory of the figure to have
been reliable at all. I'm sure we carried these parts over from other websites
and I have no problem with updating things.
I believe in this case we'd need to mark the current figure for deletion
and add a new one. Then the inventories of six sets would need to be updated.
We should probably have a better understanding of the heads and figures on the
market right now, though, and where they came from. What has worked well in
the past is contacting sellers and asking them about their items for sale. Would
you be willing to do this?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry to keep posting. I should've figured out everything I wanted to say
first. I also should have invested in Tesla stock (about 3,200 shares would
have done it) back in 2010. I didn't have $50K to invest then, though.
Still don't, as a matter of fact.
Anyway, Marek and Randy could better respond to this post since they're in
charge of inventories. I'm just responding because they haven't yet.
In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | Extra parts in sets can vary during production, and will sometimes vary from region
to region. These extra parts do not represent a complete set, nor are those pieces
required to complete a set.
|
The site is well aware of that and we do not consider extras necessary to have
a complete set. Please read how we define regular and extra parts by our policy
(which was changed, as I said, quite some time ago - I just checked and the primary
changes were made eight months ago in mid-April):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Extra parts are still considered extra parts. We all know what they are and
there is still an Extra Items section in BrickLink inventories where they go.
I don't see that ever changing.
As for parts on sprues, they've been inventories for a long time.
Not much change there other than sweeping up the remaining parts. As for parts
which came preassembled, the site has been going that way for a long time, too.
We're just doing it more quickly now. Out of all the changes, only multipacks
are really new.
What the site really needs is an inventory which can reflect two states of existence:
new and used. I asked for that when I was an inventories administrator and Randy
is still pushing for it. This requires a functional update to the site, but
it would solve this problem permanently. Once the solution was in place you
could choose to see/buy/sell the set in the state it existed when new or the
state it exists in once used.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:24 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | I've seen a post in the eurobricks forum which a states that the extra parts
section here on bricklink is changing. Please do not make this change.
|
That policy change was made something around a year ago. I'm clueless as
to why it's just being mentioned now.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 19, 2018 04:20 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set lille-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0363 Yellow Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Bushy Eyebrows and Goatee / Worried Pattern - Hollow Stud (Alternate) (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
Per expired additional note for figure cas502 which comes in this set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 20:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 182-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mvdheide writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3009pb213 Yellow Brick 1 x 6 with Crossed Knife and Fork Pattern (Sticker) - Set 182 (Counterpart)
|
Marek and Randy,
When you check the instructions for this set you will see that the sticker covers
multiple parts. However, if you look at the sticker sheet for the set and photos
of actual sets with the stickers applied, then you can see that the sticker is
only large enough for the brick it is on.
At least that was what I found, so I approved this catalog entry. If there's
a problem with it, then please let me know.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | But the sticker sheets were clearly not intended to be included as extra parts
and don't appear often enough to justify including them as extra parts.
|
There are two schools of thought on this and good arguments can definitely be
made for both positions. You have presented one side well and I will present
the other side:
1. Frequency of appearance is not currently the deciding factor in the
inclusion of an extra part in a set inventory. Should it be? I don't believe
so. How could you reasonably set a quantity of appearances before an extra is
allowed into an inventory?
2. I've never heard a convincing explanation of why any extra parts
are included in any sets, although I've certainly heard a number of theories.
Extra sticker sheets certainly don't appear to be consistent extras, but
should intentionality on the part of TLG be the deciding factor on including
extras in an inventory? I don't believe so, or at least not until we can
conclusively define (based on convincing evidence) the circumstances regarding
extra parts and their appearance in sets.
3. It is possible that extra sticker sheet extras are more common than
any of us realize, even if only packing errors. If we're not keeping any
records of their appearance in sets, then how would we truly know?
4. Extra sticker sheets fit the definition of extra parts as well as
any other extra part does. They appear in some sets and not in others. Should
we base decisions on extra parts on anything other than the fact that they came
in a set and were extra? I don't believe so.
But, perhaps Marek and Randy can produce some guidelines for us on how extra
sticker sheets should be handled in set inventories considering the positions
we've outlined.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2018 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | It's not unheard of to get a duplicate sticker sheet in a set here or there.
It has happened to me two or three times.
|
We may have differing opinions on this - not sure because we've never discussed
it. My opinion is that a sticker is a part. We consider it a part and TLG considers
it a part and includes it in the part count.
If you have an extra one of these parts, then I believe it fits the definition
of an extra part and should be included in the set inventory as such:
Were sticker sheets systematically included as extras in some sets in the way
that other parts are? We really don't know, since we haven't been keeping
data on extra appearances. The current inventory guidelines don't address
how frequently an extra must appear in order to be added to the inventory, but
the unwritten rule has been one time.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8272-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | One of the last things that were written were "Further,
there is some debate over whether PLG and flat silver are officially different
colors or merely variations in what TLG intended to be the same color." So I
chose to stop the discussion there rather than wasting everybody's time.
|
We do intend to address the issue of the differences between these colors when
we launch the project on colors. It is possible that pearl light gray and flat
silver will be combined into a single color, but we can discuss it further at
that time.
Until then, I see (and saw) little point in changing PLG parts to flat silver
parts and vice versa. If we combine the colors, then it's just a waste of
time to do inventory changing now from either color to the other.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6280-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear p96pirate (Not Applicable) Pirates Poster 1996 (4.103.789/4.103.790-EU)
Comments from Submitter:
Per additional note for poster.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:32 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7075-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244911 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Redbeard Poster (Double-Sided)
Comments from Submitter:
Additional note says that poster came in this set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7074-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244910 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Kragg Poster
Comments from Submitter:
Freestyle posters are included in set inventories, so I see no reason why this poster should not also be included in the inventory of the set in which it came.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve LEGO Movie 2 30620 Polybag | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rapar writes:
| | Can you please approve The Lego Movie 2: 30620 Star-Stuck Emmet Polybag? I have
some in my hands. This polybag can already be purchased in Poland.
|
For you I will, but only just this once.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2018 16:36 | | Subject: | Re: Stickered Parts separate category | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickphils writes:
| | Pls create separate category for stickered parts so that we dont have to go through
them when we are browsing items only with decorated/printed ones.
|
I definitely want the catalog to give members the ability to easily distinguish
between plain parts, stickered designs, printed designs, and molded designs.
We should be able to easily see what we want to see in search results without
having to go to another website or filter within search results.
However, I don't think more categories are the solution here. I believe
this needs some programming to happen, so I have moved your request to the Suggestions
topic. Suggestions are largely not read or acted upon, but don't worry -
I will continue to advocate that we have this functionality for the catalog in
the future.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2018 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60147-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Sticker should be on 1x6 white tile (part 6636)
|
It was easily fixed. Now it's a 1 x 6 tile.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2018 00:54 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3039pb119 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Dark Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1118942
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Quiver out of inventoryname. | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, tonnic writes:
| | I was putting some minifigs into my inventory when I saw the following minifig
that is mentioned to have a quiver but in fact is without quiver. See the inventory!
|
Thank you for mentioning this. It has been corrected.
If you need to correct an item name in the future, then please use this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 8, 2018 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) - Set 8129 (Counterpart)
|
I know it has already been done, but I think a new catalog entry should probably
be added here. The buttons on one slope are red and the buttons on the other
slope are dark red. Also, the patterns don't precisely match.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 69transamman writes:
| | I just have to say that no matter what the subject is, I always read thru your
post completely in search of the humor you often interject!
|
Aww, thanks! That made my day.
Nope. You may not believe this, but I have never even tasted alcohol and have
never experimented with drugs. I don't use caffeine. I smoke cigarettes
and that's it.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with drug or alcohol use, but I have
always preferred to be in control of my own mind. I do, however, think that life
is something of an absurdity and a joke and I intend to laugh at it whilst I
am able in whatever ways I find.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set
|
Note that the later version of the set included 13 sealed bags instead of the
12 bags from the first version. An attached photo from an auction site shows
the contents of the later set, although the green large bricks are not visible
in the photo.
Also, the date printed on the activity/instructions cards is 1994, but the date
printed on the cover/inventory card is 1993. The actual date of re-release is
unknown. I went with 1994, but it could have been earlier.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
I wanted to include some additional information about this set for future reference
and an inventory change is the best way to do that.
First, I personally and carefully checked every single brick in this set from
sealed contents for which I opened every bag and handled the parts (photos of
my set attached). Mine was the early version of the set released in 1991 and
there were 12 bags in the set. All of the bricks included cross supports except
a single 2 x 3 brick in yellow (the other 11 of the same brick had cross supports).
This is a late appearance for this brick (two years late according to BrickLink's
current timeline) and I was surprised to find it, but there it was.
As for inside supports, those little ridges inside the brick which are only currently
distinguished for one brick (the Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports in case
the title or part number changes in the future):
All bricks in the set, including those with designs, had these ridges with the
exceptions listed below. I mention this because it will be useful data if we
decide to distinguish these parts in the future (I compared the parts listed
below (except the last two, for which I had no comparison parts) to recent examples
and all of the newer bricks I checked had inside supports).
The aforementioned 2 x 3 brick in yellow without cross supports.
All 2 x 6 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 8 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 10 bricks in the set.
All 4 x 12 bricks in the set.
All 8 x 16 bricks in the set.
The empty window frames had hollow studs as I indicated in the inventory. The
bricks with eyes had no white included as indicated in the inventory.
Finally, and I really don't think we'd ever distinguish this difference,
exactly half of the doors and windows were attached to the left and half to the
right. So two doors attached facing left and four windows attached facing left
and the same number of each facing right. TLG did not distinguish this difference
and I see no need for us to. The door and window directions are easily reversible.
The complete contents of the set are the storage case with no lid, 12 bags of
parts and four green large bricks loose, the cover/inventory cardboard with nothing
printed on the other side, four double-sided activity/instructions cards, and
the informational sheet of paper. All of these are included in an outer original
box with the set number printed thereupon. I have the activity cards from the
1994 version and verified that each of these was different than the 1991 version
in spite of having the same 6-digit identification number printed on each card
for both versions.
I'm certain this last bit has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion,
but I mention it for the sake of completeness: my second cousin's first name
is Frank.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 12 Part 3002old Yellow Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 12 Part Yellow 3002 Brick 2 x 3 {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Another message follows.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 14:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c01 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Female (bfp001) (match ID 1)
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c02 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Male (bfp002) (match ID 1)
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px9 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Simple Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part Black 4744px14 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Woman Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px3 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Freckles and Ears Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part White 4744px16 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Baby Face Pacifier Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set to avoid an unnecessarily complicated inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 21:21 | | Subject: | Re: Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions
|
I'll do:
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
This only leaves the 4th and 5th sections which still need to be worked on.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 17:38 | | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
I need to make it clear that these are not official guidelines. I have been
working on a project to rework the catalog Help Center and the page linked to
above is a proposed page which is not yet complete or official.
The current catalog guidelines still in effect are only those on the left
side of this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
The sections on the right side of the page are proposals and are works in progress.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 03:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6387-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| What's the difference between these two items?
[P=4210c04]
[P=4210c02]
You've submitted the first one to the catalog, but isn't it the same
as the second one which is already in the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 22:40 | | Subject: | Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 250 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I am embarking on an ambitious project to create written definitions of every
single category in the BrickLink catalog. This has never been done before, although
Dan made a start here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
I realize now that it was never done because it's a massive amount of work.
Even coding the page is taking me a while, but I have the first eight letters
in the alphabet done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions and, since you'll
be the ones most affected by category definitions, who better to ask?
Please read very carefully:
1. Descriptions should be short, but complete. I'm not looking for a legal
definition, but also don't want something vague and ambiguous - the point
of these definitions is so that we can easily and completely see what fits into
a category. Creating short, accurate, complete descriptions may tax your writing
ability, but I believe it is possible for every category. Focusing on accurate
descriptions rather than listing exclusions would be best.
2. Yes, my list is not structured like Dan's. His focuses on readability
while mine focuses more on functionality. This page, to my mind, exists to serve
a purpose, like a dictionary, and not to entertain or greatly inform. My page
is more of a reference we can all use as necessary and the alphabetical order
should make it easy to quickly locate information. So I've given this structure
some thought and I'm not too interested in restructuring the page.
3. Limit descriptions to one or two reasonably short sentences. My goal
is to get everything onto one line without breaks between categories. You can
see that the Years category at the top approaches the limit in length. If we
absolutely can't accomplish this for some categories, then we're stuck
with exceptions - but let's shoot for this goal.
4. Please do not post every five minutes with new definitions. Pick the section
below you're going to work on and create all the definitions for that
section. Then post back here with your complete list. I recommend doing this
in MS Word or some other word processing software to avoid losing data. You
may claim any of these sections already unclaimed:
1st Section: A, B, C, D, E
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
3rd Section: K, L, M, N, O
4th Section: P, Q, R, S, T
5th Section: U, V, W, X, Y
Ignore the letter Z - I'll get that out of the generosity of my heart.
5. Some of these definitions will require research. For parts, look over the
categories carefully and try to completely understand why they're structured
like they are before defining them. For sets, do enough research to present
a quality definition. Some categories are repetitious, so try to include slightly
differing information for each one (years, for example). An example of repetitious
categories are the Dimensions Wave 1-9. I'm defining every category except
for years for the sake of consistency.
6. Completely ignore decorated categories. There are 33, I think, and I will
create definitions for them.
7. We will have discussion about these categories later. First we need to get
definitions in place and then, later, we can all discuss together if the definitions
need improvements. So there should, in theory, only be 10 replies to this post:
five category claims and five category section definitions.
8. I will edit your definitions as I see necessary. Save your definitions somewhere
(shouldn't be a problem if you're writing them in word processing software)
and we can discuss later if you think I've butchered any of them beyond your
liking.
Okay, that's all I can think of. This will be work, but I can't imagine
doing this all on my own. So assistance is deeply appreciated and I wish I could
do more for you than just appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Minifigures for this set were almost completely assembled in the sealed sets;
leg assemblies were the only thing separate from the combined hat/head/torso.
Therefore, if you only add in *two* parts for each minifigure in the set (of
which there are five), that brings the part total to 587.
|
The figures were assembled with headgear for display purposes, but I doubt it
would have changed how many parts TLG considered them to be for purposes of an
official part count. I don't know for sure, though - just mentioning it
as something for consideration.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | The instructions are a horror show. Can you update those?
|
Yes. Few people would ever read through all those 2,700 words before submitting
an item to the catalog, nor should they have to.
That's not to say it isn't necessary to have rules, because it is. But
that particular page desperately needs to be simplified to the salient points
along with clear, simple guidelines for completing the form. The minutiae can
be moved elsewhere.
The entire Catalog Help Center needs a makeover. There are too many topics and
some of them have not been updated in forever. I was going to work on other
things today, but I've been putting this off for too long.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't see the point of the "pattern" in the title anyway.
If everything in a decorated category has pattern in the title, it becomes useless
for searching if you restrict searches to that category.
|
Something is necessary in the title because not everyone goes to categories first.
Sometimes people just want to find all the 2 x 2 bricks with a pattern. That's
the whole point of having a search feature and the search feature is only as
good as item titles.
Ideally, as you pointed out, we would be able to tag things for the purpose of
searching and we could have more reasonable item titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| | I actually have submitted things only to have it rejected.
|
I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience in the past. We're
working on our communication and I make a serious effort to send an explanatory
message to every single contributor when I am unable to approve submissions.
| | I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly . . . I just find the form to be convoluted as heck.
|
One of the jobs of a catalog administrator is to check submissions and correct
them to catalog standards before approving them. It is true that if you make
a perfect submission it makes my job much easier and it will be approved quicker,
but don't let fear of errors dissuade you from submitting. You don't
have to get things perfect.
I know the submission form is difficult to understand, but I do not have the
ability to change it. I can tell you from experience that the more submissions
you make the easier it gets and the more comfortable you become with the form.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
And that, my friends, is the tragedy which can befall you when you attempt to
be clever whilst also being tired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | The word 'Pattern', used in parts titles, is just a comfortable placeholder
in reading the part titles. Pick out ten random parts and read them with the
word 'Pattern' and then read them without the word 'Pattern'
and they mean the same thing.
|
No, this word serves a very important purpose. You can search for "pattern"
and "-pattern" to modify your search results as desired. It's not just verbal
eye candy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | Are there any Printed/Stickered parts?
|
Yep. Just came across one, in fact.
Printed nose:
Printed nose and stickered part (no space in the title for "Pattern," apparently):
* | | 18907pb02 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Top Curved 6 x 10 x 4 with 5 Window Panes with Shuttle Nose Pattern and Space Logo on White Background on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 60080
Parts: Aircraft, Decorated |
| | I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed parts (at least dual-molded arms)
|
Yep. Here's one:
| | but not sure about the other combinations.
|
But that's the point of such a system. It would be designed for the future
as well as the past.
| | There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent. I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category name.
|
Meh. Perhaps we'll consider it in the future. I sense a lack of enthusiasm.
I changed the new category to Decorated and finished moving all the Aircraft
parts.
I actually like the eight definitions I came up with thanks to this discussion.
We need to be able to distinguish between printed, stickered, and molded designs
and people have asked for that ability. I don't think those identifiers
would ever go into part titles, but they could go into tags and result in a simplification
of overly complicated existing part titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
|
Yes, they look like LEGO products and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't
be accepted.
I changed your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The Catalog Requests topic
is only to ask that something in the catalog be changed which can't be changed
through existing forms.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 01:24 | | Subject: | Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:56 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please Allow Alternate Item Numbers for Books | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This suggestion has now been implemented.
|
Thank you for this and for the other work you're continually doing behind
the scenes to improve the catalog and inventory systems.
Little improvements like this have been needed for many, many years and you've
made many of them since you've been there.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 17:17 | | Subject: | Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 200 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:42 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center.
|
Actually, it is already there. I just meant that if we keep it, then it will
go to a different page. I hijacked the page it's on right now because I
can't create new Help Center pages.
I've updated the list. See if this new approach solves the concerns you
had.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:35 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| | Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
|
This is project number two on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
It will happen, but it is not happening right now. Please give this subject
some thought between now and the time when it does happen so that you may provide
some input at that time.
BTW, I already have written rules laid out for this project (defining all six
item types), but I am giving them some additional consideration before I begin
this project and release them for discussion. Please be patient.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:26 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:
Minifigure-Scale Character Figure
|
This is my third reply to this post. Perhaps if I had read it more carefully,
then I could have saved some ones and zeros.
Your question here was about policy and I have answered it.
| | Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure
|
Your question here was about actual inconsistencies in the additional figure
types I added at your request. I can see what you mean about inconsistencies
and I agree. So, what would you suggest to correct these inconsistencies?
I think the easiest distinction would be between specially-molded figures and
brick-built figures - this would remove having a separate item type for character
figures. Does that sound right?
BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:07 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.
|
Since you've spent some time thinking about this, I don't want to just
brush you off as I sort of did in what I just posted. The answer to this is
that there has never been a written definition of minifigures. This explains
the inconsistency of some figures being considered parts and others considered
figures. It also explains member frustration when some figures have been allowed
and others denied.
In the past, what was and was not a figure was decided on unwritten rules according
to the preferences of the person deciding. One of the self-imposed tasks I face
is ending this practice and creating written rules so that we're all on the
same page. You'll notice that a number of catalog projects mention this.
Until such time as we have written rules, there is not much point in discussing
what should or should not be a figure and until we have the ability to sort figures
by type, if we ever have it, then there is not much point in going into the minutiae
of different types.
I encourage you to keep thinking about these things, though, because when I get
to rulemaking I will open the rules for discussion and possible modification
before they're implemented (something which has rarely happened in the past).
I look forward to your input then.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.
|
I do appreciate your feedback and you can see that I incorporated some of it
into the page, but again, these are not category definitions. They change nothing
in the catalog. We haven't the ability to sort figures by what type they
are. If we ever do have that ability, then we can have a serious discussion.
Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place.
I believe you may have missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the description
of this list:
. . . figure types should not be considered definitive.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:51 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:01 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rainey writes:
| | I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
That part is just a placeholder. It will be filled in with further information
about each kind of figure if we decide to keep this as a permanent catalog feature.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It's differently inaccurate. And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but not in this section. Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
|
I absolutely do get your point. I agree that we would be wise to include all
figures of all sizes in the same place. We already do include nearly all of
them in the same place and that place is Minifigs. Some we don't and those
are the ones which you're concerned about.
The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
| | But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
|
Yes, and the place for that is here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
An item type is simply a quick and dirty method of splitting things. We only
have six item types and we will not get any more.
An item type is simply not the place for any kind of specific definition and
the current title indicates that only minifigures are housed there when, in fact,
we put nearly all figures there. Figures is a more inclusive title and thus,
more accurate. The ways in which the word Figures is inaccurate stem from policies,
and policies can be changed.
| | So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
|
Because the change would be from less accuracy to perfect accuracy provided
that additional changes were made to what was included or what should be included
in this item type. You want those changes made first, but I think we must first
start with reconsidering the idea that this section is only for minifigures.
Clearly, it already is not.
You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:37 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Complete So Soon? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow, it's hard to believe that we accomplished this in just two days. Very
impressive work, everyone! We are finished with this, right?
One of the benefits of the change logs is that it gives us a picture of how many
figures had set/gear/book numbers in their titles. This is not precise because
it was necessary to change some existing titles to avoid confusion, but I believe
I have accounted for the differences.
So, roughly, we can say that around 2,100 figures had other item numbers in their
titles and those have now been removed. The total number of affected figures
was about one fifth of all the figures in the catalog.
I feel pretty good about this change because, as those of you who have done the
actual work have seen, set numbers were a lazy way out of usefully describing
figures so that people could find them (and, honestly, figure names are, too).
I point no fingers, because I have added many figures to the catalog and only
described them with a brief name and a set number.
Anyway, if we're done with all the categories, then I'll put this project
to rest in the Completed Projects section of the catalog roadmap. We still need
to check for duplicate titles and orphaned figures, but that shouldn't take
much more work.
Thanks again to everyone who made this happen.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Robert after working through Star wars category and seeing this mess (especially
in Han Solo, Obi-Wan and Luke names) I now admit that I started to like your
Standardize Figure Titles project
|
|
I'm glad to hear that. You may appreciate it even more if you looked at
all 10,000+ figures together and saw the diverse range of titling methods which
have been applied. Not only is there no standardized title for figures, but
dashes, commas, and round brackets have been used in a number of different (and
thus ultimately confusing) ways.
And there are entire categories of figures which are simply titled Figure 1,
Figure 2, Figure 3, etc.
The problem with that project and why I shelved it for now is that it is very
complicated to create simple rules for a standard way of titling all figures.
I will continue thinking about it, though.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm not sure the StormChaser has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming is supposed to achieve.
|
I apologize for not doing this. I will address all three of these below, but
the most important point to understand is this: the only change which would occur
is to remove Mini from Figures.
What is the reason for renaming this item type?
I have asked for a name change because the current name does not accurately describe
the contents of this section of the catalog.
Why is the current labelling problematic?
The label Minifigs is not accurate because in this item type we include many
different sizes of figures which vary in size from tiny to vary large. We also
include a range of different styles of figures at these different scales.
What is the intended result of renaming this section?
Renaming from Minifigs to Figures would present a more accurate picture of what
users can expect to find in this item type and that is the intended result.
This name change is not intended to and will not define which items are included
in this section.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:15 | | Subject: | Re: Unofficial LEGO color guide | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Abels_Bricks writes:
| | I just purchased this and wonder if should be added as its an amazing resource and there is this item
|
That item was added because it was supposedly sold through official TLG channels.
If you can provide evidence that the book you purchased is currently for sale
or was ever sold by TLG, then yes, it can be added.
Otherwise, it is not an official LEGO item and would not be accepted into the
catalog.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:54 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I could tear this apart for the next two days, but I have to visit the dentist
for pain
|
I'm sorry to hear that you're in pain. I've had toothaches, as I'm
sure we all have, and they're definitely not fun. I trust the dentist will
be able to help you feel better.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, yorbrick writes:
| | The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better
|
I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.
| | I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
|
This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.
| | Droids - there aren't any!
|
To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.
I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:11 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, iprice writes:
| | You appear to be missing at least one sort
|
The list is obviously just an incomplete framework. At this point I'm looking
more for commentary on two things and we can worry about the details of that
list later.
1. Is this list of figure types something you find useful?
2. How do you feel about retitling the item type?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 06:21 | | Subject: | Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 299 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 23:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
I'm not sure precisely where we are with this, but all requests have been
approved. I've done all my categories and Scala.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I will do L this afternoon
|
Thanks for your help with this project. Some figure are only differentiated
by set numbers in the titles. I noticed this especially with Harry Potter figures
and I will go back through this theme and add brief identifying features to figures
which now have identical titles as a result of changes.
As you're doing future categories, please remember to do this for any figures
which will match existing titles when the set number is removed.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 05:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6591-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Marek, maybe the real reason that you don't approve this is because I would
have higher inventory submitted than you so you have more inventory to submit
and get approved and then you approve mine? 
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStores.asp
P.S. you figure I am just kidding?
|
Kidding or not, the implication that an administrator is stalling or denying
requests to make a profit by having a personal store featured over someone else's
is not acceptable.
Marek's store is closed right now and has been since September 5th, so he
has nothing to gain from doing this. The page you linked to is only populated
by stores which have made the highest contributions within the past two weeks.
And, of course, Marek would never do something like what you have joked about,
nor would any of us.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
)
)
)
)
