| Discussion Forum: Thread 230426 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | JulieK  | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 13:58 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 3830c01 White Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel - Complete Assembly (Counterpart)
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 14:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, JulieK writes:
| | * Delete 2 Part 3830c01 White Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel - Complete Assembly (Counterpart)
|
Why?
How are those any different than any other complete assembly which is included
in sets?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | How are those any different than any other complete assembly which is included
in sets?
|
Or, put differently, would you agree that it's inconsistent that some assemblies
aren't included in sets:
While other similar parts are included in sets?
I'm not a fan of inconsistency, but there may be a logic here I'm missing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | How are those any different than any other complete assembly which is included
in sets?
|
Or, put differently, would you agree that it's inconsistent that some assemblies
aren't included in sets:
While other similar parts are included in sets?
I'm not a fan of inconsistency, but there may be a logic here I'm missing...
|
I'm not a fan of inconsistency either. Looking at the change log for part
3830c01 leads me to believe that allowing to list 3830c01 as a counterpart on
the sets I listed fell thru the cracks.
I prefer to have that particular part listed as a counterpart, but as I said,
looking thru the change log, it's just not allowed. I put the request in
to keep things consistent even though I do not agree with it.
If Admin's are going to allow that part to be listed as a counterpart, I'm
all for it, the one's that were previously deleted should be relisted.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, JulieK writes:
| | I'm not a fan of inconsistency either.
I prefer to have that particular part listed as a counterpart
|
We agree! I'll leave your request open for a bit to give others the chance
to comment on the potential change.
| | If Admin's are going to allow that part to be listed as a counterpart, I'm
all for it, the one's that were previously deleted should be relisted.
|
Lot of work, but it can be done. The only difficulty is knowing if the part
came assembled in a set (it's the difference between adding the part as a
Regular part or a Counterpart). Hopefully someone who has knowledge of the way
this particular part came in sets (particularly older sets) will share that knowledge.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2018 21:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41328-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, JulieK writes:
| | I prefer to have that particular part listed as a counterpart, but as I said,
looking thru the change log, it's just not allowed. I put the request in
to keep things consistent even though I do not agree with it.
|
After further thought, I have decided to not mess with this right now. There
are multiple inconsistencies in the way counterparts are handled on BrickLink,
but there are also far more important things which I believe should be dealt
with first and counterpart inconsistencies, while personally irritating, are
a low-priority item.
I approved your requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Illinois
