Part 71104

[Orion Pobursky]

https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../71104.dat

This part needs to be renumbered. However:

Orion:
71014 is the now obsolete chrome version of this part. Therefore, should we resurrect the old part as an alias or delete this alias?

Max:
Is 71014 the Design ID or Element ID? If it is the design ID then we should make the old (obsolete) file an alias. If it's an element ID, then we can delete this part and have nothing to do with the other one, as we don't support physical colour parts anymore.

Philo:
It's a design ID. 71014 BROADSWORD Silver metal 
https://brickset.com/parts/71014/broadsw...lver-metal

Bringing this discussion here for any additional input before I take action.

[Orion Pobursky]

Resurrecting the old part will result in an "a" variant since any models using the original part assume it's color is chrome.

[Magnus Forsberg]

71104 = Item ID = LEGO TECHNIC CONTROL CENTER, from 1996

71014 = Item ID = BROADSWORD, Silver metal

71104 is not an alias of the sword = the file can be deleted

[Philippe Hurbain]

71104 = Item ID = LEGO TECHNIC CONTROL CENTER, from 1996

71014 = Item ID = BROADSWORD, Silver metal

71104 is not an alias of the sword = the file can be deleted

Didn't even noticed that the file was 71104 since all recent comments referred to 71014. That said, I don't really understand why this alias disappeared (https://www.ldraw.org/parts/official-par...rtid=71014). imho it should be a simple alias, linking to 59.dat just like 44493.

[Orion Pobursky]

Didn't even noticed that the file was 71104 since all recent comments referred to 71014. That said, I don't really understand why this alias disappeared (https://www.ldraw.org/parts/official-par...rtid=71014). imho it should be a simple alias, linking to 59.dat just like 44493.

It disappeared because it's hard coded silver. Now, that said, since this is a design ID, I think there's a case for either un-obsoleting it as is or creating an "a" variant that is a simple alias. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Philippe Hurbain]

It disappeared because it's hard coded silver. Now, that said, since this is a design ID, I think there's a case for either un-obsoleting it as is or creating an "a" variant that is a simple alias. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Agreed, since it has been official hard coded silver.

[Magnus Forsberg]

It disappeared because it's hard coded silver. Now, that said, since this is a design ID, I think there's a case for either un-obsoleting it as is or creating an "a" variant that is a simple alias. I'm leaning towards the latter.

But then we have to un-obsolete all the chromed parts.

[Orion Pobursky]

But then we have to un-obsolete all the chromed parts.

I think there need to be a obvious connection in the library for users of the inventory sites. I'm fine with color 16 aliases. Is there a consensus amongst the regular reviewers? Willy? You're the one who spearheaded the anti-physical color campaign.

[Magnus Forsberg]

To me, there is a clear difference between the physical coloured parts and the chrome plated ones.
Chrome plating is a surface treatment like paint on a printed part.

[Willy Tschager]

I think there need to be a obvious connection in the library for users of the inventory sites. I'm fine with color 16 aliases. Is there a consensus amongst the regular reviewers? Willy? You're the one who spearheaded the anti-physical color campaign.

As long as it is a color 16 Alias I'm fine with it. We have alias parts for transparent part number so this is just in line with those. What I don't wanna se is the same part in different colors popping up in the library.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

So in line with our similar practice of aliasing Design IDs for transparent parts, chrome are other "plated" Design IDs can be aliased to the parent part.

Any strong objections? If so, clearly explain why this solution is unacceptable.