I've made this a sticky thread. Please add parts whose absence makes a
major gap in the library. Try to stick to older parts (more than 1 year on the PT) but if a new part is important and appears to be overlooked (eg. new basics like tiles, plates and bricks) add it too.
And for those who wish to help review but don't know how, try
this tutorial.
For example:
The
4.5V and
12V have been on the PT for a long time.
Perhaps it would be best to just get them certified and modify the colour in Admin Edit?
Good idea. Additionally, take a look at the
File Queue, which I believes lists parts on the tracker in oldest-first order.
(Note you need an LDraw.org account to view the Queue. Are part tracker privileges still added manually? As I recall from my own experience, that was another obstacle to participating in the part authoring/review process - figuring out who to email to ask for access.)
One thing that comes to mind as I look at the queue of oldest parts is that I don't physically have [m]any of them. Say I was interested in helping to process these parts (I am); is it acceptable to post reviews about the implementation (e.g. does it comply w/various standards) without comparing to the actual part? Perhaps just as comments, leaving the voting to others. You don't need to it physically possess parts to review them.
... to batch-correct all of them, but I'm still waiting for the final go.
The 12V train points are still far from perfect, but I'd want to let them go with a (Needs Work) in the title
to have at least a first iteration out
Maybe drop Chris an email. The sooner you can get the happy versions up, the sooner people can get cracking on reviewing.
Yes, Author and Reviewer privileges are still added manually and, yes, you do need an LDraw.org account to be granted these. But, unless I am on vacation, rarely does it take more than 24 hours, bearing in mind that I may not be in the same time-zone as the requestor.
I have followed the leads of previous Library Admins in trying to see some "LDraw credentials" - such as authoring - before granting Review access, but I can see how that might preclude some from contributing as reviewers. It is increasing difficult to find "easy" parts for novices to author and gain experience.
I'd be happy to see some discussion on this point - in the meantime, I'll update the "Review Parts" paragraph on the Parts Tracker home page, to clarify how to request that.
There are currently 60 registered reviewers, but I've not done any analysis to see how many are active.
To be fair, Steffen has already emailed me about the metal colour usage question. It's just that the discussion thread got so fragmented it was hard for me to figure out what I was being asked to approve. I believe I have that clarity now, and hope to get to it this week.
Hello Chris,
seeing your post here, I fear that some mail between us must have been lost :-(
I'm going to re-send you my mail from 2011-11-04
Steffen
Well, from my
wanted list:
32074c01
44572
44822
47844
50747
50990
51000
57895
57906
59443
60616
60621
61191
So far, you guys have done a pretty good job of getting some of the more important ones finished up and certified, for which I'm thankful. But much like a 3 year-old, I want more!
I'm having a look at 60621 and 61191
60621 will require more work than intended: presently it's larger than matchnig door frame! In the meantime, cleaning 87601...
I've responded on the PT but I'll follow it here (NB. all I did was move the origin, the hard work had nought to do with me).
The part is almost certainly wrong in looks. But with the origin right, the name right and (needs work) I think it's certainly better to release it, flawed as it is, than to hold it up forever. If someone has the inclination to fix it one day it can be resubmitted but I don't see that happening soon.
Tim
Not sure whether or not it is appropriate to post this as a reply to this post or elsewhere...
I believe there is an argument to be made for allowing authors to leave notes (cast novotes) on other files in the tracker but not certify or hold.
Hey,
I would really appreciate such a function. Sometimes I wish I could leave a comment or a cause for thought...
Rolf
Isnt that the intent of novote?
I'm guessing he means on parts that have already made it to the library?
I think he means
"Can Authors (i.e. members in the PTSubmit group, but not in the PTReview group) be allowed to post a NoVote on any file on the Parts Tracker?".
Currently they can only comment on parts they have submitted.
I am ameanable to this, and I don't think it would be too hard to implement.
Yes. This is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
This has now been implemented. Any user can now post a NoVote (comment).
Hello all reviewers,
I've spent some time to rework almost all of the remaining parts on the Part Tracker, that got recycled in the big upload from Roland Melkert's LDCad 1.4 libfix tool. I now
need your help to review my work. Many of the files are ready for an Admin review, but there are still some in need of a first, or second, review.
How to find them?
Use this link, or make a search in the Part Tracker for "libfix". Click on 'details' and give them a review.
Only two more files still need more work, the RCX module and a Technic motor.
Max, do you have time to work on these?
If we join forces, we could have them all back in the next release of parts.
/
Magnus
Thanks for the hard work, Magnus! I'll try to have a look at these files soon.
They look to be left/right mirror images of each other, not duplicates.They look to be mirro
(2017-08-01, 14:34)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]They look to be left/right mirror images of each other, not duplicates.They look to be mirro
They are really the same, rotated around z axis.
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 236a.dat is the same as 1 16 0 114 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 4486.dat
So I would make 236a a moved to rotated 4468.
No evidence this door exists with smoke glass.
73312 is a combo with trans clear glass,
https://brickset.com/parts/design-73312 with frame in (at least) red or black.
73313 might have been a reuse, currently
https://brickset.com/parts/design-73313
(2017-08-02, 11:47)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. This means that we rename 73312 and 74313 to "TransClear Glass" and delete 4486c01.dat, 4486c02.dat
Considering the uncertainity of 73313 (see latest comment from Joshua on the forum) I'd rather keep 4486c01/4486c02 and make 73312 (and
maybe 73313???) an alias.
(2017-08-02, 18:18)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ] (2017-08-02, 11:47)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. This means that we rename 73312 and 74313 to "TransClear Glass" and delete 4486c01.dat, 4486c02.dat
Considering the uncertainity of 73313 (see latest comment from Joshua on the forum) I'd rather keep 4486c01/4486c02 and make 73312 (and maybe 73313???) an alias.
Okay then; a hands down approach would be keeping 4486c01.dat, 4486c02.dat as TransClear Glass and alias 73312 and 73313. Thoughts?
w.
(2017-08-02, 18:18)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ] (2017-08-02, 11:47)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Agree. This means that we rename 73312 and 74313 to "TransClear Glass" and delete 4486c01.dat, 4486c02.dat
Considering the uncertainity of 73313 (see latest comment from Joshua on the forum) I'd rather keep 4486c01/4486c02 and make 73312 (and maybe 73313???) an alias.
What shall we do to these - in line with the above:
Door 1 x 4 x 5 Right with Smoke Glass
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg.../73435.dat
Door 1 x 4 x 5 Left with Smoke Glass
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg.../73436.dat
w.
(2019-01-16, 22:01)Chris Dee Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand either. I can rename if there is no good reason.
Does it matter if the file is called s01 or s02?
s03 is today an official file and is used in s02.
We will end up with either s02+s03 or s01+s03.
(2019-01-17, 21:12)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ] (2019-01-16, 22:01)Chris Dee Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand either. I can rename if there is no good reason.
Does it matter if the file is called s01 or s02?
s03 is today an official file and is used in s02.
We will end up with either s02+s03 or s01+s03.
Fine then s01 should be deleted.
w.
(2019-01-17, 21:35)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ] (2019-01-17, 21:12)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]Does it matter if the file is called s01 or s02?
s03 is today an official file and is used in s02.
We will end up with either s02+s03 or s01+s03.
Fine then s01 should be deleted.
w.
Deleted.
(2019-01-21, 19:51)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]With:
13760c01.dat - Windscreen 2 x 6 x 2 with TransLightBlue Glass (Complete)
official since 2016 I'd like to know why:
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...567c03.dat
is still on the PT?
w.
Well, there is only one set listed at bricklink, that uses such a windscreen with TrL_Blue glass as alternative - this set is 60007. According to brickset this set uses 13760 frame and 13756 glass and all pictures I found on the net show the separate frame and glass version.
I tend to say, that this part is not existing. Therefore I can not cert this part. But I'm not sure if there was a pre version of set 60007 which uses 6567c03, so I didn't held this part.
/Max
(2019-01-21, 21:42)Max Martin Richter Wrote: [ -> ] (2019-01-21, 19:51)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]With:
13760c01.dat - Windscreen 2 x 6 x 2 with TransLightBlue Glass (Complete)
official since 2016 I'd like to know why:
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...567c03.dat
is still on the PT?
w.
Well, there is only one set listed at bricklink, that uses such a windscreen with TrL_Blue glass as alternative - this set is 60007. According to brickset this set uses 13760 frame and 13756 glass and all pictures I found on the net show the separate frame and glass version.
I tend to say, that this part is not existing. Therefore I can not cert this part. But I'm not sure if there was a pre version of set 60007 which uses 6567c03, so I didn't held this part.
/Max
To me 13760c01 and 6567c03 are the same and therefore we should delete 6567c03.
w.
(2019-01-21, 21:49)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ] (2019-01-21, 21:42)Max Martin Richter Wrote: [ -> ]Well, there is only one set listed at bricklink, that uses such a windscreen with TrL_Blue glass as alternative - this set is 60007. According to brickset this set uses 13760 frame and 13756 glass and all pictures I found on the net show the separate frame and glass version.
I tend to say, that this part is not existing. Therefore I can not cert this part. But I'm not sure if there was a pre version of set 60007 which uses 6567c03, so I didn't held this part.
/Max
To me 13760c01 and 6567c03 are the same and therefore we should delete 6567c03.
w.
parts/6567c03.dat has been deleted.
![[Image: 6119.png]](http://www.ldraw.org/library/unofficial/images/parts//6119.png)
![[Image: iceplanetvisor.png]](http://anoved.net/media/2011/12/iceplanetvisor.png)
![[Image: photo.jpg]](http://anoved.net/media/2011/12/photo.jpg)
![[Image: 6572.png]](http://www.ldraw.org/library/unofficial/images/parts//6572.png)