|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 05:05 | | Subject: | Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 283 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 08:23 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
Hey Robert -
Good start to the discussion. Here are my thoughts.
The rule for Counterparts if I was an Inventory Admin would be even stricter
than yours. I have always felt the Counterpart area should *only* be for things
in a set that could never be reversed and would be found in a Used set.
This list would include lengths of string that had to be cut, parts removed from
plastic sheets, parts removed from cardboard or paper sheets, stickers applied
to parts, etc. In none of these situations can the parts ever be returned to
their original state. Therefore, it makes sense to have these listed since a
Used set would contain these parts instead of the parts as shown in the Regular
items section showing what a New set would contain (one length of string, a full
plastic sheet, a full cardboard or paper sheet, a full sticker sheet, etc.).
This list would *not* include everything else: motorcycles, wheelbarrows, trikes,
bicycles, dollies, wheel and tire assemblies, hinges, turntables, carrots, glass
on windows or doors, animals, minifigs, etc.
Since the functionality to part out Special Assemblies in a set is still a no
go, *only* minifigs and animals would remain in the inventories as is for now
as Minifigs and Counterparts, respectively. However, when the functionality to
part out Special Assemblies was created, then the minifigs and animals would
be added under a Special Assemblies section and Removed as Minfigs and Counterparts.
My lines are hard and drawn deeply in the sand, but it keeps inventories simple,
uncluttered, and consistent.
Thanks for leading this effort,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I mostly agree with Randy, but with a slight bend. If it is possible, the priority
should be getting the special assemblies part out functionality and not fixing
everything twice.
In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
Hey Robert -
Good start to the discussion. Here are my thoughts.
The rule for Counterparts if I was an Inventory Admin would be even stricter
than yours. I have always felt the Counterpart area should *only* be for things
in a set that could never be reversed and would be found in a Used set.
This list would include lengths of string that had to be cut, parts removed from
plastic sheets, parts removed from cardboard or paper sheets, stickers applied
to parts, etc. In none of these situations can the parts ever be returned to
their original state. Therefore, it makes sense to have these listed since a
Used set would contain these parts instead of the parts as shown in the Regular
items section showing what a New set would contain (one length of string, a full
plastic sheet, a full cardboard or paper sheet, a full sticker sheet, etc.).
This list would *not* include everything else: motorcycles, wheelbarrows, trikes,
bicycles, dollies, wheel and tire assemblies, hinges, turntables, carrots, glass
on windows or doors, animals, minifigs, etc.
Since the functionality to part out Special Assemblies in a set is still a no
go, *only* minifigs and animals would remain in the inventories as is for now
as Minifigs and Counterparts, respectively. However, when the functionality to
part out Special Assemblies was created, then the minifigs and animals would
be added under a Special Assemblies section and Removed as Minfigs and Counterparts.
My lines are hard and drawn deeply in the sand, but it keeps inventories simple,
uncluttered, and consistent.
Thanks for leading this effort,
Randy
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 16:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | This list would *not* include everything else: motorcycles, wheelbarrows, trikes,
bicycles, dollies, wheel and tire assemblies, hinges, turntables, carrots, glass
on windows or doors, animals, minifigs, etc.
|
I excepted the wheel and tire assemblies for two reasons: first, they genuinely
are a pain to deal with. I think people would greatly prefer to buy and sell
these assembled and there is no harm in exceptions so long as they are clearly
defined. Second, a number of them did come assembled in sets. My thinking was
that if any part assembly did indeed come assembled in at least one set, then
it would hurt nothing to include it as a counterpart in other sets. Since it
will have a timeline of appearance by virtue of being included in some sets,
we might as well have an accurate timeline.
As for parts with wheels like the others you mentioned (motorcycles, trikes,
bicycles, wheelbarrows, skateboards, etc.) I was trying to strike a balance between
a little change and a lot of change. Removing all of the assemblies with wheels
from all inventories would be a significant change. The good thing about the
way I've worded the rule is that if later on we decide to go that route,
the term "parts with wheels" can simply be removed from the list of exceptions.
We agree on hinges, turntables, carrots, glass on windows or doors, etc.
| | I have always felt the Counterpart area should *only* be for things
in a set that could never be reversed and would be found in a Used set.
|
That's actually a very good definition. I like it.
| | This list would include lengths of string that had to be cut, parts removed from
plastic sheets, parts removed from cardboard or paper sheets, stickers applied
to parts, etc. In none of these situations can the parts ever be returned to
their original state.
|
For parts removed from sheets that won't be an issue once they can be parted
out. For other parts, though, it makes sense:
* | | 4209c05 (Inv) String Reel 2 x 4 x 2 Holder with Black Drum with Black String and Light Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Light Attachment - Thick Ring (4209 / 4208 / x77 / 4081b)
Parts: String Reel / Winch |
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | This list would *not* include everything else: motorcycles, wheelbarrows, trikes,
bicycles, dollies, wheel and tire assemblies, hinges, turntables, carrots, glass
on windows or doors, animals, minifigs, etc.
|
I excepted the wheel and tire assemblies for two reasons: first, they genuinely
are a pain to deal with. I think people would greatly prefer to buy and sell
these assembled and there is no harm in exceptions so long as they are clearly
defined. Second, a number of them did come assembled in sets. My thinking was
that if any part assembly did indeed come assembled in at least one set, then
it would hurt nothing to include it as a counterpart in other sets. Since it
will have a timeline of appearance by virtue of being included in some sets,
we might as well have an accurate timeline.
As for parts with wheels like the others you mentioned (motorcycles, trikes,
bicycles, wheelbarrows, skateboards, etc.) I was trying to strike a balance between
a little change and a lot of change. Removing all of the assemblies with wheels
from all inventories would be a significant change. The good thing about the
way I've worded the rule is that if later on we decide to go that route,
the term "parts with wheels" can simply be removed from the list of exceptions.
We agree on hinges, turntables, carrots, glass on windows or doors, etc.
| | I have always felt the Counterpart area should *only* be for things
in a set that could never be reversed and would be found in a Used set.
|
That's actually a very good definition. I like it.
|
I proposed something similar in 2016:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=963408
I agree we need a better definition of the counterpart. In my opinion, the counterpart
is an item that has changed when the set was build. If an assembly was assembled
by LEGO, but could be separated later then that would also be a "change" from
the original MISB situation.
- Parts taken from their sprue
- Stickers taken from sheet and applied
- Sticker over assembly
- Assembly by LEGO that can be taken apart by users later
- Assembly by user that cannot be taken apart easily (or without risking damage)
Such a definition would also guide us in the future. LEGO might surprise us with
something new, and then we would have a simple principle to base the inventory
decisions on.
Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
| | | | This list would include lengths of string that had to be cut, parts removed from
plastic sheets, parts removed from cardboard or paper sheets, stickers applied
to parts, etc. In none of these situations can the parts ever be returned to
their original state.
|
|
+ parts taken from their sprue
| | For parts removed from sheets that won't be an issue once they can be parted
out. For other parts, though, it makes sense:
* | | 4209c05 (Inv) String Reel 2 x 4 x 2 Holder with Black Drum with Black String and Light Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Light Attachment - Thick Ring (4209 / 4208 / x77 / 4081b)
Parts: String Reel / Winch |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
|
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
| | Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
Orphaned entries in the catalog do not bother me. There are tons of items in
the catalog that will never be attached to any inventory, and there are also
tons of items in the catalog that will never be sold. Database storage is cheap.
If people want to use the entries to sell assemblies, so be it.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | […]
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
|
I remember having had problems with this one as kid:
* | | 8c02 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire Offset Tread Small (8 / 3464c02)
Parts: Aircraft |
(Both wheel from plate and then tire from hub.)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:13 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
|
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
| | Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
Orphaned entries in the catalog do not bother me. There are tons of items in
the catalog that will never be attached to any inventory, and there are also
tons of items in the catalog that will never be sold. Database storage is cheap.
If people want to use the entries to sell assemblies, so be it.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I can't honestly remember if these came assembled:
What I do know is if you find one assembled still, and it doesn't have cracks,
keep it that way; because I have had very little success removing them without
cracking them(!)
Though, in general, I agree with Randy about his view on tire and wheel assemblies...
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
I am convinced that the function of counterparts in our inventories is to accommodate
those parts that have changed. That is the only reason why we need counterparts.
(The MISB/unchanged part in the main inventory, the changed part in the counterpart
section).
Everything else we use the counterpart section for is an exception.
I do however see good reasons to include many assemblies in the catalog. I prefer
to have those linked to inventories. Currently, the counterpart section is the
best suited option to include them. Maybe the Special Assemblies section could
be used in the future.
The more I think about this, the longer the list of useful functional pairs becomes.
- wheel + tire
- turntable
- hinge
- animals (body + jaw, body + legs etc)
- container + lid
- window + glass
- lever + base
- For vehicles, the situation already becomes more complicated, there we have
a frame + wheels + tires (but the assembly should not become more complicated
than that)
For all of these, there are some basic guidelines:
- The assembly was actually used in a set. We should not want to add any combination
that would be theoretically possible.
- The assembly is simple, a few parts only (usually two, but vehicles use more)
- The assembly often provides a function (the parts were designed as a pair to
provide movement, rotation, etc.) or the assembly contains parts that are usually
not disassembled after their first use (animal parts, window + glass, container+lid)
because many users (and buyers) will perceive them as belonging together. Resellers
will often find these assemblies as pairs in used lots, the part is often useless
without its paired part (what use is glass without a window frame? or a jaw without
an animal body? I am sure that someone can MOC an exception, but 99% of the
time they will be used assembled).
Making this long list, I feel that making an exception for wheels+tires only
is not enough.
But I also feel that I do not want to open up the counterparts section for an
unlimited amount of subassemblies and minibuilds. The counterparts section clearly
needs some restrictions to remain useful. Something like the carrot assembly
(33172c01) should not be a counterpart. (But it might be a Special Assembly.
I still think the Special Assemblies are an unwanted clutter and complication
of our catalog, but I accept those are going to happen no matter how I feel about
them).
To summarize:
All these assemblies are exceptions if we use them as counterparts but I do prefer
to have them linked to inventories. Mini-builds/special assemblies are not counterparts
and we do need some limits to avoid blurring the distinction between those.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please see the current incomplete listings of this set.
At the time that this set came out, there was a lot of demand for just the cars,
that in this one case, (IE Cars movie characters), where a new form of minifigures.
There was never any solution to this, and sellers have been forced to sell the
parts only, or list the cars as incomplete sets ever since. Buyers are left confused,
and not able to find what they want.
So, since you have asked my opinion... , in case something similar ever comes
up again in the future, these type of characters should have a way to be listed.
I don't have the answer, as all this catalog stuff is beyond me, I'm
more of a builder  .
Darren
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | maxx3001 | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, renhoffman writes:
| | Please see the current incomplete listings of this set.
At the time that this set came out, there was a lot of demand for just the cars,
that in this one case, (IE Cars movie characters), where a new form of minifigures.
There was never any solution to this, and sellers have been forced to sell the
parts only, or list the cars as incomplete sets ever since. Buyers are left confused,
and not able to find what they want.
|
I totally agree with this, those cars need to be minifigs.
| |
So, since you have asked my opinion... , in case something similar ever comes
up again in the future, these type of characters should have a way to be listed.
I don't have the answer, as all this catalog stuff is beyond me, I'm
more of a builder .
Darren
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
|
I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.
| | Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
|
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.
This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.
Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.
In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.
| | So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.
So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?
I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 23:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
|
I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.
| | Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
|
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.
This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.
Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.
In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.
| | So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.
So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?
I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I think most people would not understand why one is in inventories and the other
is not. The parts are very similar.
The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller. We define minifigs as a unit and inventory
them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.
Why do we do that? Because that's how people want to use our catalog. Imagine
what it would be like if we applied this restricted counterpart definition to
minifigs and did nnot allow them to be listed in set inventories. It would make
it simpler to create inventories, right? People could still figure things out
by tracking down the constituent parts. So why not?
Because minifigs are assemblies that users want to buy, sell and identify as
an assembled unit. The same is true of many counterparts.
"Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less. But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place. But if they
ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them
in inventories. That is one of the basic features of the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 05:15 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
|
Well, not exactly. Arbitrary is defined as being based on random choice or
personal whim, rather than any reason or system. The way counterparts have been
handled in the past is undeniably arbitrary. I'd like to move to a defined
system which has reasons behind it and is thus not arbitrary.
| | It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller.
|
Those are different issues. When it comes to counterparts, I'm confident
that we can create a non-arbitrary method of handling them in inventories.
| | We define minifigs as a unit and inventory them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.
|
They may not inventory them as an assembly, but they define them as such. Read
the item descriptions of any modern LEGO set or look at the set boxes and you'll
see descriptions of, names in many cases for, and photos of assembled minifigures.
Regardless, minifigures are a separate issue altogether and are not comparable
to part assemblies except in a general sense.
| | "Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less.
|
I'm sorry friend, but I don't consider it information. I consider it
noise. I'm still open to whatever, though. We could very well end up throwing
everything into inventories.
If we do, then I trust you'll soon be submitting catalog entries and inventories
and inventory change requests for all the color variations of this part which
will be necessary once we start adding it to inventories?
And part entries for the stickered versions?
* | | 3937pb04 Hinge Brick 1 x 2 Base with Ghostbusters Logo, 'CAUTION' and 'STAY BACK OVER 500 FT' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75828
Parts: Hinge, Decorated |
And catalog entries for all these combined parts and their color variations?
And entries for the stickered versions of this part?
And I imagine people would want to sell these together?
And these?
And these?
And these?
And these?
I could go on giving examples for quite a long time. My point is that the
line appears to already have been drawn some time ago. It's just that no
one wanted to face the unpleasant task of correcting the excesses of the past
when the line was crossed.
I know that not everyone will be happy regardless of what route we go, but I
also know that you're as fond of consistency as I am. Including some assemblies
in inventories (for no apparent reason) and excluding others (for no apparent
reason) is definitely inconsistent, just as including certain assemblies in the
catalog and excluding others was inconsistent.
| | But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place.
|
Not necessarily. As you say, people do want to buy and sell certain assemblies.
It doesn't hurt anything to have these catalog entries, but that doesn't
mean that we can't have standards for what goes into inventories.
| | But if they ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them in inventories.
|
Yes, that troubles me also. It's the biggest flaw in my plan to me personally
because I don't like seeing orphaned catalog entries. I've decided I
can live with it for the sake of people who want to buy and sell parts as assemblies.
Also, the orphaned assemblies clearly aren't going to be removed from the
catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Call it a rule that has been applied arbitrarily, then. And the method under
discussion is just as subject to random application because it is apparently
based on how difficult it is to separate the parts. Randy has already disagreed
with me on the relative difficulty of pulling the hinge plates apart compared
to the hinge bricks. That would be how we would be deciding whether a part is
inventoried or not?
Does that not seem absurd?
The comparison to minifigs is not merely general - it is exactly analogous. They
are both common assemblies of easily-separated parts that collectors, buyers
and sellers want to deal with both as a unit and as individual components. We
include minifigs in inventories, we should include assemblies, too.
That Lego sets have photos of the minifigs on the box is meaningless - as I say,
we depart from Lego all the time because the needs of the secondary market are
different. And besides, the fully-assembled counterparts are also pictured on
the box and that does not bless them into the inventory. And besides again, see
the subthread about the Cars characters, which are also named and appear on the
boxes but are not inventoried as figures or counterparts. So - Lego defining
an assembly does not mean that Bricklink does, and vice versa. I have
no problem with that, because as I say our needs are different.
And I think we may have lost sight of what the needs of the Bricklink user are.
When we start layering rules on top of one another for the ease of administrators
rather than the needs of the user, we are failing to learn from the past.
It would be much simpler to have one rule rather than two, and the place to apply
the rule is in the creation of assembly entries. If counterparts are threatening
to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here? 
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here?
|
No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.
Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.
Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).
Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.
| |
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.
Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.
It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.
The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:
Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:42 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here?
|
No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.
Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.
Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).
Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.
|
I misunderstood the original statement. I follow your logic here.
| | | |
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.
|
Well, what angers me is those who do the most complaining and champion the increase
in work are the same individuals who do not end up contributing to the work.
See where I'm coming from?
| | Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.
It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.
The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:
Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.
|
I am not opposed to the work. I am opposed to the bloat of inventories that impede
my ability to do the work that I do on the site. Yes, my motives are selfish,
but your motives are based on what you want as a seller and in turn also selfish.
Like Robert said, not everyone will be happy no matter what decisions are made.
So that is why I wrote the following a few posts ago:
"So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need
to ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of
just one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking
at what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?"
Any thoughts on that?
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here?
|
No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.
Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.
Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).
Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.
|
I misunderstood the original statement. I follow your logic here.
| | | |
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.
|
Well, what angers me is those who do the most complaining and champion the increase
in work are the same individuals who do not end up contributing to the work.
See where I'm coming from?
|
Yes I do, and it is insulting.
Here is an example. I specialize in vintage parts. A good portion of my sales
are to people restoring Classic Space sets. Here is an assembly that was missing
from the catalog:
Judging by how often I sold the components, I determined there was a market for
it as an assembly. I submitted it and it was approved. Then I added it to the
nine sets in which it appears, as a counterpart. Also approved.
Just a small contribution. I've sold dozens of these since then, and they
are currently selling at the rate of about 20 per month. Not a huge contribution
to the catalog. Not a huge contribution to the income of Bricklink or any one
seller. But all these small contributions by the people to whom they are important
- as well as those of the people who have made regular contributions part of
their Lego hobby - have made this catalog what it is. Encouraging pissing matches
over who does more is counter to the spirit of community on which the site was
built.
| |
| | Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.
It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.
The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:
Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.
|
I am not opposed to the work. I am opposed to the bloat of inventories that impede
my ability to do the work that I do on the site. Yes, my motives are selfish,
but your motives are based on what you want as a seller and in turn also selfish.
|
Ah. Well, I would just repeat what I have been saying in a slightly different
way - whose "selfish" needs are meant to be met by Bricklink? Catalog contributors?
Or sellers? (and buyers and collectors?)
| |
Like Robert said, not everyone will be happy no matter what decisions are made.
So that is why I wrote the following a few posts ago:
"So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need
to ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of
just one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking
at what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?"
Any thoughts on that?
|
Options are great.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Ah. Well, I would just repeat what I have been saying in a slightly different
way - whose "selfish" needs are meant to be met by Bricklink? Catalog contributors?
Or sellers? (and buyers and collectors?)
|
Everyone's. Insinuating that you know otherwise is just speculation on your
part. Of the four you list, I am three of them (catalog contributor, buyer and
collector). The needs of the fourth do not concern me. So, we need options for
all. Like I have said multiple times now, maybe we are both looking at this wrongly.
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
|
I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
|
I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).
Randy
|
It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.
And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening
the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest
of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
|
I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).
Randy
|
It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.
And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
|
Exactly. It is *not* the guidelines that are arbitrary. The guidelines *are*
defined. It is the fact that people do not apply the guidelines consistently.
I think we have a very good set of administrators in place now, as well as a
catalog overseer in Russell that is actually on BrickLink's payroll. This
has never been the case before. Therefore, consistency going forward is only
going to increase and become more objective over time.
| | There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.
|
But it is in the interest of other users, which is why I proposed adding different
views to the inventory for different user types.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, mhortar writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
Hi Josh,
In my childhood collection, I only had one white
and one red
But the white one got broken, sigh 
They came with this beautiful set that my mother really liked:
SezaR
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | goodneighbor55 | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, mhortar writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
Hi Josh. Maybe you were thinking of this one
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, mhortar writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
There have been, yes. But this is not an issue. We already have a method for
dealing with bi-color parts, which is to define one color in the title and one
in the color field. Like these parts, for example:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ZwarteMagica | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 03:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| First, excellent you seek opinions first before acting!
My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
I can imaging that every user has his or her own purpose of using the inventory.
So give them control about what to see.
Making check boxes or radio boxes at the inventory page to change the inventory
quickly and make it some sort of default setting like the part/set upload for
sale where you can choose which one should be the default.
Also let the user choose if the want to see every thing or just one complete
inventory.
For example: do not show stickersheets in the inventory of you show sticker-ed
parts.
Together with a couple of smart inventory editors/admins you can define a couple
of needed/wanted inventory settings.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 06:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
The unfortunate problem is that it would likely take a significant amount of
programming. The BL programmers are working on their own projects and I doubt
this would be a priority for them. Could it be done? Yes. Would we see it
sometime within the next 10 years? Possibly.
The issue of part assemblies has been ongoing for over a decade. I see no reason
why we can't get it fixed right now.
Also, changing the options for viewing inventories doesn't really address
at all the issue of where we should stop with part assemblies.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 07:36 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
|
It is not a matter of new or used. But I like hte idea. Perhaps it should
toggle between set inventory WITH or WITHOUT assemblies. Like when parting out
a set the system has an option for parting out minfigs as well, or not.
| |
The unfortunate problem is that it would likely take a significant amount of
programming. The BL programmers are working on their own projects and I doubt
this would be a priority for them. Could it be done? Yes. Would we see it
sometime within the next 10 years? Possibly.
The issue of part assemblies has been ongoing for over a decade. I see no reason
why we can't get it fixed right now.
Also, changing the options for viewing inventories doesn't really address
at all the issue of where we should stop with part assemblies.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, patpendlego writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
|
It is not a matter of new or used. But I like hte idea. Perhaps it should
toggle between set inventory WITH or WITHOUT assemblies. Like when parting out
a set the system has an option for parting out minfigs as well, or not.
|
One could push the idea even further and think it could be applied to time /
production runs.
Let the viewer choose what variants they want to see.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 06:07 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As used-parts collector and seller I see it as follows:
Assemblies.
Assemblies, found as used, may have damage or discoloring on one part while the
other part is good; in general I prefer to disassemble assemblies as much as
possible (like wheel/tire, hinges, etc.) and list each part seperately, therefore
I would prefer to see each individual part available in the Catalog, and as such
listed in Set-inventories.
So in general from my perspective, as used-parts collector and seller, I have
little need for assemblies, except if dissassembly would unrepairably damage
some or all of the parts, like stickered parts, or most likely damage some of
the assembly, like the 3149- and 3324-series hinges, and maybe some wheel/tires,
in which case I do not take them apart, and list them as assembly if that is
available. Although listing them as one part (e.g. the wheel) and mentioning
in the description that it includes the other part (the tire) often works just
as well.
Counterparts.
I have no objection at all to counterparts, nor to assemblies as counterparts.
Counterparts are usefull imo, and with respect to assemblies like stickered over
parts very much desirable.
Like the mentioned hinges however, these could be listed as Superlot in the store,
but then they would not be visible in set-inventories, so I would prefer these
as assembly-counterparts.
Another example of parts that could be an assembly but not neccessarily are below,
it is almost similar to stickered over parts, but not entirely, because these
can be disassembled, however the upper- and lower-pattern on various bricks often
do NOT line-up and I am quite happy when I find two bricks with matching print.
Superlotting these works fine though, on the rare occasion I have these bricks
at all.
In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
Maybe a 3rd designation under the photo could indicate the part is included in
an assembly, next to the * and !.
I think a % would be appropriate.
As long as the part assemblies you mentioned remain in the catalog that is fine
and more important to me. I don't have strong feelings on if an assembly
counterpart is included in an inventory.
It would be a good idea to include some type of key at the top of every inventory
page explaining what the punctuation marks mean
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think a lot of the opposition is allayed if we don't make a change until
special assemblies can be shown in an inventory instead. And it is a lot less
work that way too.
In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 15:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, axaday writes:
| | I think a lot of the opposition is allayed if we don't make a change until
special assemblies can be shown in an inventory instead. And it is a lot less
work that way too.
|
Ah, I understand what you're saying now. You're saying when we can list
the parts as special assemblies, then just move them from counterparts to special
assemblies and add all the currently orphaned entries as special assemblies.
That's something I could live with because these assemblies would go into
a category with things like the following assembly (which was clearly created
only for commercial purposes):
It may be the wisest solution of all. It would allow these assemblies to be
inventoried in sets and thus serve the needs of buyers and sellers. It would
allow people like myself who prefer cleaner inventories based on logic and reason
to be happy also, since I know the special assembly section of an inventory would
be a space set aside for things which have been added to the catalog only for
commercial purposes.
It would even allow Randy to be happy because all the parts with wheels and wheel
assemblies could be moved from counterparts to special assemblies and the list
of exceptions could potentially be eliminated altogether. What would make the
whole thing perfect is if users could opt out in settings from seeing the special
assemblies section of an inventory.
There is only a single flaw with this: that it could take years to code. I was
hoping to get something done about this issue very soon. Nevertheless, I think
this idea is so perfect that I'm willing to wait.
BTW, since this has come up several times: this issue is not about the
amount of work involved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 06:46 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
things like the following assembly (which was clearly created
| | only for commercial purposes):
|
If that is what he was thinking, he was out of his mind. No one would buy that.
At least not in a timely manner.
| | BTW, since this has come up several times: this issue is not about the
amount of work involved.
|
I'm not calling you lazy and I'm not calling myself lazy, but why do
the work twice? We made some special assemblies a few months ago because Russell
was into it and I haven't spoken with him since, but if he is still into
it, I'd guess he has more stroke with the programmers than you or I do.
Maybe this can really get done soon.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 07:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, axaday writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
things like the following assembly (which was clearly created
| | only for commercial purposes):
|
If that is what he was thinking, he was out of his mind. No one would buy that.
At least not in a timely manner.
| | BTW, since this has come up several times: this issue is not about the
amount of work involved.
|
I'm not calling you lazy and I'm not calling myself lazy, but why do
the work twice? We made some special assemblies a few months ago because Russell
was into it and I haven't spoken with him since, but if he is still into
it, I'd guess he has more stroke with the programmers than you or I do.
Maybe this can really get done soon.
|
We might need some way to sort these "functional part assemblies" from "minibuilds"
in the Special Assembly section. We would improve the Counterpart section, but
we might create a challenge for the Special Assemblies section.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, axaday writes:
| | I'd guess he has more stroke with the programmers than you or I do.
Maybe this can really get done soon.
|
I have no stroke (although, I suppose, I could possibly have one someday). 
In fact, so far as I'm aware I've never spoken with any of the programmers.
As for being done soon, I have asked for a new section to be added to inventories
into which we can place everything which was added to the catalog solely for
commercial purposes (the questionable small assemblies, various large assemblies,
animals, and eventually minifigures).
I was not given a definite answer, so I think it would be fair to assume that
this will not be a priority. In other words, don't expect anything to happen.
Business as usual.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 04:04 | | Subject: | Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.
|
Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.
Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.
These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.
This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.
I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.
Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.
Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 04:50 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for this update and of course, for working towards putting those assemblies
on a different section.
Just a question though - to get new inventories approved, must the counterparts
as the definition stands now, still be included? It has always bothered me that
I have to assemble wheel and tires to get the inventory "complete" and it would
be a great help if new inventories can be submitted straight as out of the box
with counterparts added later.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Thank you for this update and of course, for working towards putting those assemblies
on a different section.
Just a question though - to get new inventories approved, must the counterparts
as the definition stands now, still be included? It has always bothered me that
I have to assemble wheel and tires to get the inventory "complete" and it would
be a great help if new inventories can be submitted straight as out of the box
with counterparts added later.
|
The counterparts are not required to get inventories approved. However, it does
make our job easier if you do include them. If you don't include them, then
we can add them before approval.
You do not need to assemble anything to add counterparts to a pending inventory.
If the instructions show an assembly, then just add that assembly to the inventory.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 07:24 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.
|
Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.
Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.
|
I'm sorry to hear that.
Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
| | These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.
This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.
I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.
Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.
Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 03:40 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
|
Yes, of course it should be updated if the situation is ever corrected. However,
as long as the counterparts section is being used as a catch-all for a variety
of items, then I don't think it really matters. We'll just throw everything
in there and call it good - no definition needed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
|
Yes, of course it should be updated if the situation is ever corrected. However,
as long as the counterparts section is being used as a catch-all for a variety
of items, then I don't think it really matters. We'll just throw everything
in there and call it good - no definition needed.
|
I do not agree with you on that.
It is good to know what should be in there, and what are the exceptions.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 06:43 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
|
Yes, of course it should be updated if the situation is ever corrected. However,
as long as the counterparts section is being used as a catch-all for a variety
of items, then I don't think it really matters. We'll just throw everything
in there and call it good - no definition needed.
|
I do not agree with you on that.
It is good to know what should be in there, and what are the exceptions.
|
Okay, you talked me into it. You make a good point that we should all know what
is expected. I've updated the Help page using a definition for counterparts
that appears to be the consensus. You can find the new section under the heading
Additional Information About Counterparts. It reads as follows:
Parts and Part Assemblies as Counterparts - The Counterparts section is
intended exclusively for items which are permanently changed during the process
of building a set. Examples include stickers applied to parts, strings which
are cut or tied to reels or other parts, and assembled parts which came unassembled
and would be damaged or destroyed if disassembly were attempted. At the present
time, however, the Counterparts section is used for anything which does not fit
the definition of a regular, extra, or alternate part.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
I still have no problem with any other assemblies being added to sets and will
continue to add them if they exist in the catalog. I simply think they should
have a section all their own.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 08:44 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I still have no problem with any other assemblies being added to sets and will
continue to add them if they exist in the catalog. I simply think they should
have a section all their own.
|
Second
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 08:19 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.
|
Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.
Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.
These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.
This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.
I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.
Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.
Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.
|
The only thought I have after reading this is "Ugh." I am not happy to see things
go in this direction.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 05:56 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The only thought I have after reading this is "Ugh." I am not happy to see things
go in this direction.
|
Ah, it's not so bad. Here's why:
1. There are only a handful of part assemblies not in inventories (less than
10, I believe). This really won't change much at all.
2. This also does not change the plan we all decided was the best. I will still
advocate for a new section for inventories into which assemblies added only for
commercial purposes (like the large figures you just added) will go. When that
happens we can enact a strict and precise definition for counterparts and follow
through with it.
Adding these parts now will make the transition much easier when the time comes.
The hard part is actually adding them - moving them to the new section will
be easy.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There are only a handful of part assemblies not in inventories (less than
10, I believe).
|
It is worse than I imagined. Apparently a number of parts have been given only
token appearances in inventories:
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 08:33 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.
|
Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.
Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.
These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.
This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.
I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.
Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.
Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.
|
I guess I just don't understand the hate for counterparts and having them
in inventories. The section is at the bottom of the page and easily ignored by
anyone whose sensibilities are offended by their presence. In the meantime, those
of us who want to sell them benefit from having them attached to the inventories.
At any rate, I am still concerned that any new rules for defining counterparts
will be based on the hopelessly subjective "hard to take apart" criterion.
There are two questions, here - what makes an assembly a "part" for the purposes
of creating a catalog entry for it, and what makes a part a "counterpart" for
purposes of adding it to an inventory. I think we are coming at this from the
wrong end. It should not be a question of defining "counterpart," but "part."
We already have some guidelines on what should not be submitted for catalog
entries:
Items that should not be added to the catalog:
...
Part Combinations - For example 2, 3, or 4 bricks stacked together
should not be added to the catalog as there are virtually infinite possibilities
for these combinations.
...
Large part assemblies. - Large assemblies of parts that can be built
into figures, vehicles, or other structures often comprise a substantial portion
of a set and should not be added to the catalog. An exception has been made in
the past for some DUPLO vehicles representing fictional characters.
( https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=71 )
By implication, then, I would argue, if the catalog admins have deemed that a
submission is not merely a "part combination" or a "large part assembly" then
it is a valid entry - it's a "part."
Once it's in the catalog, the existing definition of counterpart applies
- special assemblies of parts from the Regular Items section
( https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562 )
The issue here is with what gets into the catalog in the first place. We have
these small assemblies that meet the cat admins' definition of a "part" but
that the inventory admins do not want to list on the inventory pages, thus creating
orphans. Changing the definition of "counterpart" does nothing to prevent future
orphans. At the risk of being too blunt, the only way to prevent more orphans
is to stop having children.
So I think the discussion should turn to what makes a small assembly a part (and
by extension, a valid counterpart). One method already suggests itself - look
to the instructions. Many of these parts under discussion are shown as distinct
sub-assemblies in the instructions. They are assembled as a unit, then placed
in the model.
No - a sub-assembly by itself should not define a "part." That is already addressed
in the "part combination" exception in the present guidelines. For an assembly
to be considered a part, it should be made up of pieces designed to work together
as a unit, which are shown as sub-assemblies in at least one set of instructions.
This is in addition to stickered parts and wheel-tire assemblies, which already
have specific guidelines and an established practice for inclusion.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 04:12 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I guess I just don't understand the hate for counterparts and having them
in inventories. The section is at the bottom of the page and easily ignored by
anyone whose sensibilities are offended by their presence. In the meantime, those
of us who want to sell them benefit from having them attached to the inventories.
|
No one hates them and they are not offensive. Here's an overview of the
problem:
Part assemblies were added with no forethought. Someone realized that this may
not be the wisest route and part assemblies (for the most part) stopped being
added. Some were removed from inventories. Others remained. There the situation
remained and we are left with a mess no one has wanted to tackle.
Do we add more part assemblies or do we instead delete the ones which exist?
What criteria do we use for deciding this?
Ultimately, as you have pointed out, those are catalog issues. I have no say-so
there, but it does fall on me (and Marek - this isn't a one-man show) to
decide what to do with assemblies in inventories.
| | At any rate, I am still concerned that any new rules for defining counterparts
will be based on the hopelessly subjective "hard to take apart" criterion.
|
Actually, the way I worded it is "extremely difficult to separate or likely
to be damaged by separation." I'm aware that this is subjective (more on
that in just a moment).
| | The issue here is with what gets into the catalog in the first place.
|
That and not deleting what should never have been added.
| | We have these small assemblies that meet the cat admins' definition of a "part" but
that the inventory admins do not want to list on the inventory pages, thus creating
orphans.
|
You should be happy that this has now changed.
| | For an assembly to be considered a part, it should be made up of pieces designed to work together as a unit, which are shown as sub-assemblies in at least one set of instructions.
|
With this definition I have to ask where you would stop? Do you want a catalog
filled with these things? A catalog where you have to scroll through hundred
of assemblies in different colors (because a new catalog entry must be created
for each color combination), in different patterns (because new catalog entries
must be created for each stickered version of the assembly), and in different
variants (because new catalog entries must be created for each assembly which
includes a part variant)?
I like that you want a definition based on more objective criteria, but it isn't
practical. Subjective criteria simply make more sense here. Regardless, those
are catalog issues and the catalog administrators do not appear to be interested
in discussing the issue. All I can do is handle my job, which is inventories.
As far as inventories, I'm going to make the best of an imperfect situation.
If it was added to the catalog, then it goes into inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 16:16 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I guess I just don't understand the hate for counterparts and having them
in inventories. The section is at the bottom of the page and easily ignored by
anyone whose sensibilities are offended by their presence. In the meantime, those
of us who want to sell them benefit from having them attached to the inventories.
|
No one hates them and they are not offensive. Here's an overview of the
problem:
Part assemblies were added with no forethought. Someone realized that this may
not be the wisest route and part assemblies (for the most part) stopped being
added. Some were removed from inventories. Others remained. There the situation
remained and we are left with a mess no one has wanted to tackle.
Do we add more part assemblies or do we instead delete the ones which exist?
What criteria do we use for deciding this?
Ultimately, as you have pointed out, those are catalog issues. I have no say-so
there, but it does fall on me (and Marek - this isn't a one-man show) to
decide what to do with assemblies in inventories.
| | At any rate, I am still concerned that any new rules for defining counterparts
will be based on the hopelessly subjective "hard to take apart" criterion.
|
Actually, the way I worded it is "extremely difficult to separate or likely
to be damaged by separation." I'm aware that this is subjective (more on
that in just a moment).
|
Something I do quite regularly in preparing used parts for sale is to remove
stickers that have slid out of place, clean the gummy dirt from the brick, then
replace the sticker. It takes some attention, but it is not difficult to do,
and there is no damage to the sticker.
It's not merely that this definition is subjective, it's that it is not
grounded in how the parts and the catalog are actually used. So what if the 1x4
hinge bricks can be pulled apart easily? Who uses them separately? How many people
are looking to buy and sell it as a unit compared to people who just want one
half or the other? I find one set that uses only one of these parts in a non-hinge
function. It's a part - a hinge.
The "damaged by separation" criterion is, again, coming at the issue from the
wrong end. Its intention is not to create a definition that reflects the reality,
but to create a definition that reduces the number of "parts." That is backward,
in my opinion.
| |
| | The issue here is with what gets into the catalog in the first place.
|
That and not deleting what should never have been added.
|
| |
| | We have these small assemblies that meet the cat admins' definition of a "part" but
that the inventory admins do not want to list on the inventory pages, thus creating
orphans.
|
You should be happy that this has now changed.
| | For an assembly to be considered a part, it should be made up of pieces designed to work together as a unit, which are shown as sub-assemblies in at least one set of instructions.
|
With this definition I have to ask where you would stop? Do you want a catalog
filled with these things? A catalog where you have to scroll through hundred
of assemblies in different colors (because a new catalog entry must be created
for each color combination), in different patterns (because new catalog entries
must be created for each stickered version of the assembly), and in different
variants (because new catalog entries must be created for each assembly which
includes a part variant)?
|
I think it's kind of funny to see opposite assumptions being made in support
of the same objection. On the one hand, some people are saying there are not
enough contributors who will go through and inventory counterparts, then there
are people saying if we open the gates wide open on defining counterparts, there
will be a flood of people contributing them to the catalog.
I think we are all aware of the reality. There are a handful of non-admin members
who are regular and prolific contributors. This is great. I expect they consider
it an extension of their hobby. Speaking for myself, I am usually motivated to
contribute by market factors. I sell Classic Space parts. I wanted a certain
wheel/tire assembly in the classic space inventories so my customers could find
them. So I took 30 minutes of my time, took a photo, submitted the assembly,
then submitted the inventory requests. Now that we are going to inventory existing
assemblies, I'm happy to focus on the ones in Classic Space, Legoland, Town,
etc which is where I want to find my customers. And if I happen across a 4447c01
with a sticker on the glass and I want to sell it, I'll take a picture, submit
it, and if it's approved I'll add it to the inventory. But I'm not
going to go out and buy up every patterned glass just to add them all at once.
Possibly other sellers who have them in hand will submit them also. And so the
catalog grows slowly, according to the needs of the users.
As for scrolling through too many parts, I see promise in the discussion that
took place over the Express version of the site. The current taxonomy is not
well organized. It's one of those things that seasoned users have just grown
to understand, but it is not intuitive and it does not follow accepted methods
of organization. That BL is simplifying it for the express version tells me they
have come to this conclusion as well. In a well-organized catalog, you don't
have to scroll a lot. With a decent search function, you may not have to scroll
at all.
| |
I like that you want a definition based on more objective criteria, but it isn't
practical. Subjective criteria simply make more sense here. Regardless, those
are catalog issues and the catalog administrators do not appear to be interested
in discussing the issue. All I can do is handle my job, which is inventories.
As far as inventories, I'm going to make the best of an imperfect situation.
If it was added to the catalog, then it goes into inventories.
|
I would like to see some new people involved in administering the catalog. My
criticism in the past has been along these same lines - that we create and adhere
to artificial rules for their own sake rather than make common-sense decisions
based on reality. The former ban on allowing minifigs to be inventoried with
solid-stud heads is a prime example. It was a rule made to accommodate a shortcoming
in the catalog, not one that reflected the demands of the users, and it took
far too long to rectify. So when I see a similar proposal being made for inventories,
it looks like a step in the wrong direction to me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 06:23 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | The "damaged by separation" criterion is, again, coming at the issue from the
wrong end. Its intention is not to create a definition that reflects the reality,
but to create a definition that reduces the number of "parts." That is backward,
in my opinion.
|
I believe I've been rather open about the fact that I'd prefer not to
see the catalog filled up with assemblies which exist solely for commercial purposes.
My interest in the catalog has always been as a reference tool about the history
of LEGO items.
Yet, I know that the catalog exists to fulfill market needs. Therefore, I'm
adding the assemblies to inventories as you (and presumably others) wish. Actually,
you're the only one who spoke up to present the commercial position and you're
getting what you wanted. Frankly, I thought you would've experienced a greater
happiness about this than you have so far expressed.
| | So when I see a similar proposal being made for inventories,
it looks like a step in the wrong direction to me.
|
Fair enough. The rules I created were only a test and I removed them a few days
after making them - no changes were made to inventories in regards to those rules.
Sellers can put whatever they want in the catalog that the administrators will
approve - the only thing I ask is that a new section for inventories be added
so that all the commercial assemblies can be in one place together and not affect
the content or rules of a given inventory or the sections of that inventory.
I and others (pretty much everyone else who responded to this thread) would
be happy with that and merchants should be happy with having all the commercial
assemblies appear in their appropriate inventories.
Thank you, by the way, for the changes you made to the windows. I've been
working on this:
It now appears in 96 sets, up from 0 sets just a few days ago. It's going
rather slowly because I keep having to check through set instructions to make
sure the correct assemblies are added. The smaller sets are easier because you
can usually see the assemblies in the set picture.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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:
has 2 hinges with a black base and red top
has 6 hinges with a red base and a brown top
has 2 different hinge combinations: dark red base with black top and
light gray base with black top
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.
Josh
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 15:21 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| 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: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 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:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | 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:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | 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:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | 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:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
Stormchaser:
"The goal is to have a new section for inventories (titled Assemblies or something
like that). There you would find minifigures, animals, trucks, planes, houses,
small part assemblies and whatever else people found it convenient to buy and
sell assembled."
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
|
Well, I didn’t break either but, when a kid and when brick separators didn’t
exist, I had to use a butter knife to disassemble 3937c01 while I always could
disassemble 3830c01 easily by hand.
| | Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
No sense at all, but the two hinges are still different.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
|
Well, I didn’t break either but, when a kid and when brick separators didn’t
exist, I had to use a butter knife to disassemble 3937c01 while I always could
disassemble 3830c01 easily by hand.
|
I remember using a knife to separate plates, I do not remember separating either
of these hinges as a kid.
| | | | Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
No sense at all, but the two hinges are still different.
|
looking at https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562 I am not sure if that
difference is relevant.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Well, it does say:
“Examples include […] assembled parts which came unassembled and would be damaged
or destroyed if disassembly were attempted.”
3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.
And it now comes unassembled and it could be damaged or destroyed during disassembly,
which makes it a possible Counterpart according to the current definition.
3830c01 comes unassembled and would not be damaged or destroyed with dissassembly.
It’s not a candidate for Regular. And it would not be a candidate for Counterpart
without the proviso:
“At the present time, however, the Counterparts section is used for anything
which does not fit the definition of a regular, extra, or alternate part.”
“At the present time” means it will change when the new “Assembly” section exists.
And when that happens, 3830c01 won’t be a Counterpart.
This explains why the difference is relevant.
Now, this does not explain why the part is marked for deletion, au contraire.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 16:18 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Now, this does not explain why the part is marked for deletion, au contraire.
|
I think there is reason to leave it in the catalog even though out of inventories.
Similarly, if I were the king, I would leave quite a few of the undetermined
pieces in the catalog, though not in inventories. So that when someone orders
variant a they can nope that that is what they'll get. There are an awful
lot of listings that pick a variant and then say "maybe not this piece" in the
comments.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Well, it does say:
“Examples include […] assembled parts which came unassembled and would be damaged
or destroyed if disassembly were attempted.”
3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.
And it now comes unassembled and it could be damaged or destroyed during disassembly,
which makes it a possible Counterpart according to the current definition.
3830c01 comes unassembled and would not be damaged or destroyed with dissassembly.
It’s not a candidate for Regular. And it would not be a candidate for Counterpart
without the proviso:
“At the present time, however, the Counterparts section is used for anything
which does not fit the definition of a regular, extra, or alternate part.”
“At the present time” means it will change when the new “Assembly” section exists.
And when that happens, 3830c01 won’t be a Counterpart.
This explains why the difference is relevant.
Now, this does not explain why the part is marked for deletion, au contraire.
|
In what sets did 3937c01 come assembled? I was not aware they ever did.
I think we can take Russell at his word - that this hinge is being deleted to
prevent the addition of any more "unnecessary" hinge combinations, and not based
on any of these theoretical suppositions about what makes a part a part.
The problem I have with the reason given is that it implies this part is "unnecessary."
That seems not to be supported by the fact that the hinge assemblies sell at
about three times the rate of the individual parts. It is a very necessary part
from the standpoint of Bricklink users. It is where 75% of the people looking
for these parts are finding them - under the listings for the assembled hinge.
If we want to put an end to any more new hinge assemblies, that is perfectly
achievable without also deleting this part. Just reject them if they are submitted.
This part is not setting a precedent - it is 16 years old and there has been
no explosion of new hinge assemblies in the meantime, despite the introduction
of several new hinge types.
The precedent I am worried is actually being set is that any part might
be deemed "unnecessary" based on what might happen if it is allowed to
remain, rather than based on what has actually happened and what is currently
happening in regards to how Bricklinkers are using the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 18:49 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.
|
[…]
In what sets did 3937c01 come assembled? I was not aware they ever did.
|
I remember using a butter knife to separate them to make droids like
I remember it hurt to re-assemble them (it still does).
And I thought I remembered they came assembled in the 1980’s.
But I might just be getting confused.
Anyway, that doesn’t invalidate the second part of the difference Woutr wanted
to know about: they can easily be broken when disassembled, not the brick hinge.
Agreed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
3937c01 came already assembled, which makes it a Regular part in my book.
|
[…]
In what sets did 3937c01 come assembled? I was not aware they ever did.
|
I remember using a butter knife to separate them to make droids like
I remember it hurt to re-assemble them (it still does).
And I thought I remembered they came assembled in the 1980’s.
But I might just be getting confused.
|
They are not listed in any regular part sections, only as counterparts. If anyone
can document that they were shipped assembled, this technicality might prevent
them from being deleted in the future.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | The "damaged by separation" criterion is, again, coming at the issue from the
wrong end. Its intention is not to create a definition that reflects the reality,
but to create a definition that reduces the number of "parts." That is backward,
in my opinion.
|
I believe I've been rather open about the fact that I'd prefer not to
see the catalog filled up with assemblies which exist solely for commercial purposes.
My interest in the catalog has always been as a reference tool about the history
of LEGO items.
Yet, I know that the catalog exists to fulfill market needs. Therefore, I'm
adding the assemblies to inventories as you (and presumably others) wish. Actually,
you're the only one who spoke up to present the commercial position and you're
getting what you wanted. Frankly, I thought you would've experienced a greater
happiness about this than you have so far expressed.
|
I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.
My outlook is not simply "commercial." I want a reference source, too. From my
point of view, that is what I am advocating for - criteria that reflect the reality
of how Lego is used, not artificial criteria that reflect the relative ease or
difficulty of keeping track, or of making updates.
| |
| | So when I see a similar proposal being made for inventories,
it looks like a step in the wrong direction to me.
|
Fair enough. The rules I created were only a test and I removed them a few days
after making them - no changes were made to inventories in regards to those rules.
Sellers can put whatever they want in the catalog that the administrators will
approve - the only thing I ask is that a new section for inventories be added
so that all the commercial assemblies can be in one place together and not affect
the content or rules of a given inventory or the sections of that inventory.
I and others (pretty much everyone else who responded to this thread) would
be happy with that and merchants should be happy with having all the commercial
assemblies appear in their appropriate inventories.
|
I honestly do not expect a flood of new assemblies being submitted and/or approved.
It seems the lines are being drawn between "sellers" and everyone else. I disagree
with that assessment. I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
The 1x4 hinge, for example, which before now has been exiled from inventories,
is not an imaginary assembly dreamt up by a seller. It's a hinge; a functional
Lego part. I think it is reasonable to believe that sellers, buyers and collectors
will buy, sell and search for this assembly as a unit. Defining it as a part
and including it in inventories not only benefits buyers and sellers, it reflects
how the parts are usually found and actually used.
| |
Thank you, by the way, for the changes you made to the windows. I've been
working on this:
It now appears in 96 sets, up from 0 sets just a few days ago. It's going
rather slowly because I keep having to check through set instructions to make
sure the correct assemblies are added. The smaller sets are easier because you
can usually see the assemblies in the set picture.
|
That is a tough one.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.
|
It sounds as though you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself.
| | I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
|
I define a commercial assembly as any assemblage of individual parts which did
not come in the package already assembled. The only reason for having catalog
entries for assemblies which originally came unassembled is to facilitate the
ease of buying and selling them. I would make an exception to that definition,
however, for minifigures.
Yes, they fit together. Yes, they were intended to be assembled by the end user.
Yes, they were intended by TLG to be used as one part. Yes, in the wild you're
likely to find them already assembled. Yes, sellers and buyers would prefer
to have the ability to sell them as a unit instead of individual parts. None
of those facts make the reasons for including them in the catalog any less commercial.
Several of those criteria accurately describe this part:
In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.
|
It sounds as though you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself.
| | I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
|
I define a commercial assembly as any assemblage of individual parts which did
not come in the package already assembled. The only reason for having catalog
entries for assemblies which originally came unassembled is to facilitate the
ease of buying and selling them. I would make an exception to that definition,
however, for minifigures.
Yes, they fit together. Yes, they were intended to be assembled by the end user.
Yes, they were intended by TLG to be used as one part. Yes, in the wild you're
likely to find them already assembled. Yes, sellers and buyers would prefer
to have the ability to sell them as a unit instead of individual parts. None
of those facts make the reasons for including them in the catalog any less commercial.
Several of those criteria accurately describe this part:
In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
There is one important difference. Parts assemblies like 3830c01 form a "functional
element" that is used in many sets. Part assemblies like spa0008 are a "minibuild"
that is used in one set only. (The names of those categories are not perfect,
but I think you'll understand what I mean.)
I do see the "minibuild" category as commercial only.
I do not see the "functional element" category in the same way, they are suited
for a more intuitive approach to the parts in our catalog and I do see added
value in that. (I agree with you that they should not be in the main inventory,
and that it is an uneasy exception to include them in the counterpart section)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.
|
It sounds as though you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself.
|
Absolutely not the case. I'm just recognizing that reasonable people disagree
on the issue.
| |
| | I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
|
I define a commercial assembly as any assemblage of individual parts which did
not come in the package already assembled. The only reason for having catalog
entries for assemblies which originally came unassembled is to facilitate the
ease of buying and selling them. I would make an exception to that definition,
however, for minifigures.
Yes, they fit together. Yes, they were intended to be assembled by the end user.
Yes, they were intended by TLG to be used as one part. Yes, in the wild you're
likely to find them already assembled. Yes, sellers and buyers would prefer
to have the ability to sell them as a unit instead of individual parts. None
of those facts make the reasons for including them in the catalog any less commercial.
Several of those criteria accurately describe this part:
In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
The special assemblies section is very small. I don't like them, and am glad
there are not more. They do not represent what we're talking about here,
because they are not parts that are intended to be used with one another primarily.
That gate is made up of common parts that are basic elements not designed to
be used with any other specific elements like the halves of a hinge brick
are.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 03:39 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 10:41 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."
Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."
Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=241320
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | pitz8008 | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."
Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.
|
I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to get involved in the workings of
Bricklink or the catalog. I just think that it was simply ridiculous to get rid
of this hinge from the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 17:36 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, pitz8008 writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."
Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.
|
I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to get involved in the workings of
Bricklink or the catalog.
|
Same here.
| | I just think that it was simply ridiculous to get rid
of this hinge from the catalog.
|
Agreed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 2, 2018 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
Now that you mention it, the turf war theory is making sense to me. As a result
of this discussion, several new entries of this combination have been added
to reflect the bi-colored variations.
The 1x4 hinge brick is the only other one of the four hinge combinations in the
catalog that has been issued with different-colored parts, and it is the only
one marked for deletion. It looks to me like the catalog admins are drawing the
line in the sand so they can reject any color variations on the 1x4 hinge.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 06:32 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In the meantime, those of us who want to sell them benefit from having them attached to the inventories.
|
The situation is worse than I imagined and I could use a little assistance.
Since you feel strongly about having these part assemblies in inventories, perhaps
you would be willing to help me get them there? I know I asked that ICRs not
be submitted, but I don't want to spend the next year working on these.
If you're willing, then these three would be a good start:
* | | 4863c03 (Inv) Window 1 x 4 x 2 Plane, Single Top Hole and Double Bottom Holes for Glass with Trans-Brown Glass (4863 / 4862)
Parts: Window |
They each currently appear in only one set.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So will part assemblies such as this be allowed?
1 black
plus 2 of these in white
As found in set:
Side note: I was surprised the drawer and cupboard are not listed as working
together.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, JulieK writes:
| | So will part assemblies such as this be allowed?
1 black
plus 2 of these in white
|
Yes, that is allowed in inventories. If it's in the catalog, then it's
allowed in inventories. All you need to do is get it approved through the catalog
and then we'll get it into an inventory.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of part assemblies which could be
added to the catalog. I've got 14 pending right now.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, JulieK writes:
| | So will part assemblies such as this be allowed?
1 black
plus 2 of these in white
|
Yes, that is allowed in inventories. If it's in the catalog, then it's
allowed in inventories. All you need to do is get it approved through the catalog
and then we'll get it into an inventory.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of part assemblies which could be
added to the catalog. I've got 14 pending right now.
|
Fantastic!
I try to look at things like someone who is new to Lego and/or BrickLink and
I think this is a major plus for those folks.
I'll brush up on my picture taking skills and start submitting.
Thank You!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
For certain counterparts, such as wheel assemblies, I think the best idea would
be to treat them the same ways as a minifigure.
For example, instead of most of those even being listed in the counterpart section,
they should be listed in the regular inventory. Then there should be an option
to break them down, like a minfigure. So the option "break part assemblies" could
then be selected.
Andrew
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 03:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | For certain counterparts, such as wheel assemblies, I think the best idea would
be to treat them the same ways as a minifigure.
For example, instead of most of those even being listed in the counterpart section,
they should be listed in the regular inventory. Then there should be an option
to break them down, like a minfigure. So the option "break part assemblies" could
then be selected.
|
I strongly disagree with this being the default view for inventories. I would
be okay with a feature which allowed you to combine parts into their assemblies,
but not with making assemblies the default position.
First, this would cause problems with our part counts matching official part
counts. As much as is possible, I'd like to match the TLG part count for
a set.
Second, I believe our inventories should show the contents of a set exactly as
it appeared new. Some parts did come already assembled and TLG counts them as
one part. For those parts the Regular Items section should show them exactly
that way. Adding other assemblies as regular items which come disassembled and
are counted as two parts confuses the issue.
I've no problem with assemblies being in inventories, as inventorying them
might benefit commerce (which was the sole reason for adding most assemblies
to the catalog). However, they should have a place of their own within the inventory.
I know there are some who will say that BrickLink exists solely for the purpose
of commerce anyway, so what does it matter? My position is that, like it or
not and in spite of its flaws, the BrickLink catalog is the largest, most complete,
most accurate LEGO reference around. Thus, I believe we have a responsibility
to serious collectors and not just to buyers and sellers.
The needs of everyone must be balanced and I am giving consideration to commercial
interests by adding these counterparts back into inventories. I do not think
it wise, however, to add assemblies into the Regular Items section when the constituent
parts came unassembled.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 3, 2018 16:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | For certain counterparts, such as wheel assemblies, I think the best idea would
be to treat them the same ways as a minifigure.
For example, instead of most of those even being listed in the counterpart section,
they should be listed in the regular inventory. Then there should be an option
to break them down, like a minfigure. So the option "break part assemblies" could
then be selected.
|
I strongly disagree with this being the default view for inventories. I would
be okay with a feature which allowed you to combine parts into their assemblies,
but not with making assemblies the default position.
First, this would cause problems with our part counts matching official part
counts. As much as is possible, I'd like to match the TLG part count for
a set.
Second, I believe our inventories should show the contents of a set exactly as
it appeared new. Some parts did come already assembled and TLG counts them as
one part. For those parts the Regular Items section should show them exactly
that way. Adding other assemblies as regular items which come disassembled and
are counted as two parts confuses the issue.
I've no problem with assemblies being in inventories, as inventorying them
might benefit commerce (which was the sole reason for adding most assemblies
to the catalog). However, they should have a place of their own within the inventory.
I know there are some who will say that BrickLink exists solely for the purpose
of commerce anyway, so what does it matter? My position is that, like it or
not and in spite of its flaws, the BrickLink catalog is the largest, most complete,
most accurate LEGO reference around. Thus, I believe we have a responsibility
to serious collectors and not just to buyers and sellers.
The needs of everyone must be balanced and I am giving consideration to commercial
interests by adding these counterparts back into inventories. I do not think
it wise, however, to add assemblies into the Regular Items section when the constituent
parts came unassembled.
|
This is definitely not an arguement in any way.
But when trying to follow your proposal, wouldn't it then be necessary also
to remove minfigures from the regular set inventory? Since most sets come with
the minifigures unassembled.
On another issue, regarding the part count. I do think that would be minor issue,
since the programming code for the part count, could be easily revised to count
the part assemblies within the set for the final part count so as not to allow
an inconsistency.
Andrew
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Sep 3, 2018 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 348 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | This is definitely not an arguement in any way.
|
Hmmm. I guess my skills at presenting an argument must be lacking.
| | But when trying to follow your proposal, wouldn't it then be necessary also
to remove minfigures from the regular set inventory? Since most sets come with
the minifigures unassembled.
|
Absolutely. This will happen someday. Right now the system can't handle
it, but minifigures will be moved when it can. Including minifigures by default
throws off part counts.
The goal is to have a new section for inventories (titled Assemblies or something
like that). There you would find minifigures, animals, trucks, planes, houses,
small part assemblies and whatever else people found it convenient to buy and
sell assembled.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DadsAFOL | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
|
I caught up in this thread, and want to voice my support for catalog/inventory
flexibility. There is no reason why both the "collector" view and the "commercial"
view can't coexist. More data is always better than less data because you
can always hide data you personally don't want to see. You can never unhide
data that doesn't exist in the first place. Some simple "viewing preferences"
could be added. I can't count how many times over the last 10 years we have
helped a non-AFOL buyer find what they need in the catalog. We also proactively
contact buyers when we've seen they order parts that don't fit, but look
from the thumbnails like they might - doors and door frames is a good example.
So the long term solution needs to satisfy both groups of users.
One thing that I didn't see discussed is whether certain part assemblies,
or special assemblies should only be allowed in the catalog only as "used" and
not "new". So I like the suggestion of setting your view based on "what came
out of the box" vs "what you might find in a kid's toy box". I think for
special assemblies, you could have "new" (never assembled) groups of mini build
parts as well as "used". Just apply the official rule on minifigures (which
I know is not generally followed) that if you built it - its used. This gets
a little fuzzier with stickered parts, but I would argue that those can only
be "used". If you are viewing an inventory with the perspective of "used", then
the new sticker sheet should be hidden from view, and conversely if you are viewing
"new" parts, all stickered counterparts should be hidden. For a further example,
if you want to sell the hinge brick as "new" you need to send the buyer the two
pieces unconnected. The only "new" assemblies should be the ones that came out
of the box assembled (which really only applies to classic sets) when TLG used
to do more of that.
Yes, this adds programming complexity, and yes its likely to take a long time
for BL to get there. But this seems like the best way to keep both groups of
constituents happy.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mockingbird | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2018 10:12 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mockingbird | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2018 10:17 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
|
|
Yes, please
| | | | The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
|
|
For assemblies the color combinations and part variants are indeed a difficult
issue. Can't think of an easy solution for that. Something like a 'not
applicable' color and then add a comment to describe the colors (or variants)?
This would work for selling the parts, but I don't know if the comment field
is available in inventories.
Why not create a new option in inventories? Something like 'assembled parts
and pairs' This would include the wheel/tyre combination, the assembled hinges,
stickers over assembly, etc.
This would NOT include full assemblies of subsets (like a train wagon or a car).
These go in the 'special assembly' (or subset) option .
Keep the counterparts option for the stickered parts, strings, hoses as per your
new definition.
And because of the many options in inventories that would be available then.
Make it possible to hide certain of these options when viewing or printing the
inventory.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2018 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
|
|
Yes, please
| | | | The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
|
|
For assemblies the color combinations and part variants are indeed a difficult
issue. Can't think of an easy solution for that. Something like a 'not
applicable' color and then add a comment to describe the colors (or variants)?
This would work for selling the parts, but I don't know if the comment field
is available in inventories.
Why not create a new option in inventories? Something like 'assembled parts
and pairs' This would include the wheel/tyre combination, the assembled hinges,
stickers over assembly, etc.
|
Something like this would be my preference also.
This section could work exactly like the current counterparts, but under a different
category heading and with a different definition. All the current exceptions
to the counterparts could go in this category.
| | This would NOT include full assemblies of subsets (like a train wagon or a car).
These go in the 'special assembly' (or subset) option .
Keep the counterparts option for the stickered parts, strings, hoses as per your
new definition.
And because of the many options in inventories that would be available then.
Make it possible to hide certain of these options when viewing or printing the
inventory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, British Columbia
South Africa, Western Cape
)
)
)
