Is adding a Bricklink reference enough to republish a part

[Manfred Schaefer]

I sent a DAT file of an existing part (minifig head) to the PTAdmin to upload this file to the Part Tracker. I just added a Bricklink reference.
I received a message during the verification process that just adding a Bricklink reference is not enough to republish this part.
From my point of view, a Bricklink reference is very helpful. I found more minifig heads that need a Bricklink reference.
What is the statement from the community, is it okay or is that not enough to republish a part? 


Greetings

Manfred

[Orion Pobursky]

Note: this is my opinion and not an official statement

Does the part in question have a set number in the KEYWORDS? If not, I'd say that adding that is cause to recycle the part since it's out of compliance with our current Library Spec. Consequently, if you're added the set number keyword then adding a Bricklink reference can happen at the same time. Since these are header only edits they should qualify for fast track review.

[Willy Tschager]

There are almost 6000 parts/subfiles/prims waiting to get certified:

https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/pthist3.cgi

Please don't burden the reviewers with even more work.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

There are almost 6000 parts/subfiles/prims waiting to get certified:

https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/pthist3.cgi

Please don't burden the reviewers with even more work.

w.

I'd classify header changes as administrative. This is why we created the fast track system.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I'd classify header changes as administrative. This is why we created the fast track system.

Someone still has to verify that the reference is the right one. IMHO, only a fast track is not enough, in this case.

[Orion Pobursky]

Someone still has to verify that the reference is the right one. IMHO, only a fast track is not enough, in this case.

Why? Even if it's wrong it doesn't matter to the part geometry and the correction can be fast tracked. Geometry is the only thing that should be subject to two-party review. This notion is consistent with our current practices concerning header changes.

[Magnus Forsberg]

Why? Even if it's wrong it doesn't matter to the part geometry and the correction can be fast tracked. Geometry is the only thing that should be subject to two-party review. This notion is consistent with our current practices concerning header changes.

I think the content, and correctness, of the header is equally important to review. 
Are you saying that we should not pay attention to the content of the header in a review?

[Orion Pobursky]

I think the content, and correctness, of the header is equally important to review. 
Are you saying that we should not pay attention to the content of the header in a review?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that header changes for already official parts can be fast tracked. This is something that we already do.

[Manfred Schaefer]

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that header changes for already official parts can be fast tracked. This is something that we already do.

The fast track system sounds good. 
This reduces or avoids the additional burden on the reviewer. Only the administrator needs to agree and approve. Do I understand this in the right manner?
Who is the administrator, is it Chris?
Since the parts have already been published, the only way to do this is by email.
In my email I have attached a comparison of the two Minig Heads from LDraw and Bricklink. This should be enough as a check, I hope.
Should this change be documented in a HISTORY line or not, as it is not a design change?

Greetings

Manfred

[Chris Dee]

Since the parts have already been published, the only way to do this is by email.

Greetings

Manfred

That's not correct. Once an official part has been re-submitted to the Parts Tracker by an admin (currently only me) anyone can replace it there.

If you only need a set number (or other KEYWORDS) added, it is acceptable to request that in a comment and I will update during admin review.