macfreek

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About macfreek

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

572 profile views
  1. So far, I haven't received a reply to this note. Is this the right place to report errors on the colour table?
  2. I very much appreciate your thoroughness. Thanks, and enjoy your new year!
  3. There seem other discrepancies in the colour tables found at different sources. I'm comparing Rebrickable, LDD, Brickset, LDraw, Peeron, BrickOwl, Swooshable, Ryan Howerter. I'll only report here when I'm certain of a mistake. The RB colour table seems to err for two LEGO IDs: Metal Blue (RB ID 137) lists LEGO IDs 145 and 137. LEGO ID 137 is Medium Orange, and should be removed from the Metal Blue line. Brown (RB ID 6) lists LEGO IDs 217 [Brown], 187 [Sand Yellow Metallic], and 25 [Earth Orange]. I'm not sure about the mapping, but the name for LEGO ID 187 is not "Sand Yellow Metallic", but "Metallic Earth Orange". There is a "Metallic Sand Yellow", but with LEGO ID 147 (not 187). "187 [Sand Yellow Metallic]" has to be changed to either "187 [Metallic Earth Orange]" or "147 [Metallic Sand Yellow]". The source of these names is LDD, and given that I just downloaded it from lego.com, I trust that source is correct. Please verify for yourself. Note that more sites seem to have confused Sand Yellow Metallic. Beside Rebrickable, Peeron and BrickOwl have an incorrect ID-Name mapping. LDraw, Swooshable and Ryan Howerter are on par with LDD.
  4. @Lucky-Ramses, just to be clear, I don't want to break things, just to fix obvious errors. Given your posts, it seems best to follow the categorisation of BrickLink, and make sure the references are correct. That would entail: Map the two LEGO rust colours to Dark Orange, as BrickLink did. I'll submit change requests for those two parts. Keep BL Rust as a separate color from Red, as it is visually distinct. Same as BrickLink did. The only thing that still needs to be corrected is the colour tabel. If I'm correct, we need the following entries (with apologies for the poor-mans table formatting): ID Name LEGO LDraw BrickLink BrickOwl 216 Rust 216 [Rust] 27 [Rust] 83 [Rust] 484 Dark Orange 38 [Dark Orange, 484 [Dark Orange] 68 [Dark Orange] 54 [Dark Orange] DK.ORA], 216 [Rust] Do you concur with this?
  5. That's exactly my point. Yet, Rebrickable claims they are the same (In the chart at https://rebrickable.com/colors/, it has BL Rust and LEGO Rust on the same line). So you are saying Rebrickable is wrong, like me. Your proposal is to simply remove RB id 216. I'm perfectly fine with that solution. However, there are a few parts with that colour on Rebrickable. My question is what to do with those items. I gave a few proposals (like remapping those to Dark Orange). Which of those do you prefer? Or do you prefer something else?
  6. It seems there is an incorrect entry on the Rebrickable colour chart, concerning Rust. According to Ryan Howerter, the BrickLink Rust is distinct from Lego Rust. If Ryan is right (and given his knowledge on the subject, I think he is), BL Rust is just (Bright) Red (Lego ID 21, Rebrickable ID 4) in softer plastics. The "Rust" color on Rebrickable is similar to BL Rust. How to solve this? My first suggestion is to reclassify the parts with Rebrickable color 216 as Rebrickable color 4, and to to change the color table to add the following entries to Red (Rebrickable ID 4): BrickLink ID 27 and possibly BrickOwl 83. (BrickOwl seems to classify both BL Rust and LEGO Rust as the same color). LDraw seems to get it right. The Rebrickable color ID 216 can than be removed. The alternative is to keep Rust as a distinct Rebrickable color. In that case, Lego ID 216 and LDraw ID 216 should be removed from the line with Rebrickable ID 216. Now, there are still a few parts in LEGO Rust. According to Ryan: 51163cx1 and 48394, which are now classified as Dark Orange. So my second suggestion is to add LEGO ID 216, LDraw ID 216 (and possible BrickOwl 83) to Rebrickable ID 484. An alternative here is to repurpose Rebrickable color ID 216 as Lego color 216, and reclassify the above to parts to use Rebrickable color ID, and add keep LEGO ID 216, LDraw ID 216 with to Rebrickable ID 216, but also add BrickLink 68 (and possibly BrickOwl 83) to signify their different classification.
  7. Bedankt! [Thanks!] No need for the points. I'm trying to get my complete collection on Rebrickable, and am busy reporting some minor things anyway. Just wondering, given another recent thread, is there a naming convention? You named the patterns "15678pat0001" etc., so with the "pat" suffix. Most other printed/pattern parts use the "pr" suffix (and only 1 or 2 parts the "pb" suffix, apparently a mistake based on BrickLink convention). Is there a reason to use "pat" here instead? Or is there simply no convention?
  8. Part 31875 does not have a correct BrickLink mapping. This is a chameleon (misspelled as Cameleon on Brickset and here on Rebrickable). However, Rebrickable only contains one print, which is marked as the colour "lime". In reality, there are 3 prints (the purple-lime one in Lego set 41185-1 (2017), the all green one in Lego Friends magazine LEA-104 (not on Rebrickable), and the green-magenta one, source unknown to me). These prints are known as 15678pb01, 15678pb02, and 15678pb03 at BrickLink. So I'm inclined to submit a change request to change the BrickLink ID to 15678. Unfortunately, searching for 15678 does not yield any result at BrickLink. So my question: what should I submit as BrickLink ID in the change request?
  9. With apologies for my slightly neurotic personality: In that case, may I suggest the "x" or "bb" prefix for consistency? A quick analysis of 1182 parts not starting with a number revealed the following statistics of the most often used prefixes (with apologies for the poor-man table formatting): Count Prefix Usage 277 x Unknown part ID, often (minifig) accesoiries, or electronics 145 bb Bricklink ID 81 fab Fabuland 47 kkc Knights Kingdom Card 43 belvfem Belville female minifig 42 sailbb Cloth Sail 33 tech Technic Figure legs 28 js Minifig Jack Stone 24 bbcard BrickLink ID, Lego sports card 24 rb Rubber Band 23 flex Technic Flex Cable 21 create Creationary Game Card 14 u Unknown part ID 13 b Book 13 belvmale Belville male minifig 10 belvskirt Belville minifig skirt 10 clikits Clikits 9 case Packaging
  10. FYI, @TobyMac approved the submissions: bb695 as tilemodified0001 and bb696 as baseplate18x26. While the identifiers are a bit lengthy to my taste (especially since the printed parts will be e.g. tilemodified0001pr0001 etc), I think this is the best we can do.
  11. Parts typically have up to three images, labelled "Element", "LDraw", and "Photo". What is the source of the (rendered) "Element" image? I've noted that for 85863pr0014 (a microfig), the Element incorrectly seems to have two white feathers below its headband. I briefly thought I confused 85863pr0014 and 85863pr0036, but that is not the case. See the image below. They are distinct microfigs, and neither has a white feather. PS: I hereby release this photo as CC0 (CC zero/Public domain). Feel free to use at these parts to illustrate the difference. Original image (without text) available upon request. PS2: Is there a list of elements without photo image that I can use to submit images (I know there is a list of parts for which there is no image at all).
  12. I've noted a few sets (e.g. 60158-1) without sticker part. I personally don't really care about them, but if someone is, let me know, and I try to add these parts with images (and submit the part to the set).
  13. Hi Thea, I did some more searches on the usual sites, but only BrickLink and bricker.info contains a part list of 9550-1. Both use the BrickLink bb695 & bb696 numbering. Other site (Brickset, peeron, lugnet) all came empty. A Google & DuckDuckGo search on the part itself wasn't successful. The scans of the booklets and gear at BrickLink doesn't contain a partlist, and the set I have doesn't have any instructions anymore. The bricks only seems to be part of this set, so looking for other instructions (with part lists) will likely also come up empty. Do you have any other suggestion to find the Lego ID for this part? Otherwise, how do I proceed with my submission? Use the bb part numbers? Leave that field empty? ...? To continue, what should the part numbers be for the printed parts? My plan is to add the set as well, once all parts are in. However, my set is incomplete (missing red boxes, stickers have been applied, no booklet or gear). Do you think I should add those to, to get a complete part list? Otherwise, I rather stick to Lego parts, and leave out the non-Lego gear parts.
  14. Can I assume that the JSON output of an API call is UTF-8 encoded? It's not explicitly mentioned in the HTTP headers or the documentation. (Although RFC7159 seems to suggest it.)