(2020-05-01, 21:44)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We do complete assemblies for Minidoll torsos, Minidoll hips and legs, and Minifig hips and legs (not all of them). Why don't we for Minifig torsos? Or Technic figures? Or all Minifig hips and legs?

I think we should. And I think all assemblies should be fast track eligible.

(2020-05-01, 21:44)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I think we should.

(2020-05-02, 11:31)Willy Tschager Wrote: Changing a torso is just inlining and a few clicks while you get surely lost browsing a library with all those pattern/color combination out there.

(2020-05-02, 12:32)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are already inconsistent in this regard. We already have complete shortcuts for Minidolls and some Minifig Hips/Legs. From a user standpoint, it makes no sense to me why we can't be consistent with ourselves and, also, be like the rest of the inventory sites in the community. Right now, trying to figure out what torso goes with what assembly is a gigantic pain. The sorting "problem" is instantly solvable with a new CATEGORY, new prefix, or, simply, creative bucketing.

P.S. I don't know why we are so lothe to add new CATEGORYs

(2020-05-02, 13:27)Willy Tschager Wrote: We are not an inventory site. I surely don't have to remind you how much afford was needed to get rid off the physical parts, which was a step in the inventory direction.

w.

(2020-05-02, 13:57)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are (kind of) an inventory site. However, you have yet to present a good counter (for something we are already doing) except “library clutter” which doesn’t hold a lot a weight with me. By your argument we shouldn’t have any assemblies and force users to assemble, say, the RCX brick from scratch every time.  

Also, I consider this fundamentally different from physical color parts as those are single parts.

(2020-05-02, 15:38)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: ...and for most usages you still have to inline the torsi to pose the minifig... I am not so keen adding the shortcuts (same things for legs, for minidolls or fabuland figures!)

(2020-05-02, 15:50)Orion Pobursky Wrote: This mean we should mandate some sort of external number (eg BrickLink, ReBrickable, BrickSet) for every pattern part going forward.

(2020-05-02, 16:48)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: The number might be changed in an external source.

• Hips/Legs
  There are for more printed hips in the field than printed arms, so in my opinion to put complete assemblies of hips/legs into the library needs to be done, looking for them through the library might be extremely painful...
  Also you always have a left and a right leg, they most probably have the same patter number, but it is easier to have the complete part there.
  
  
• Arms/Torsi
  As with the hips, I think it would most make sense if there is a pattern on the arms. So we should have those combos in, at least. Other assemblies, with single colour arms, would have kind of a "logical" relarion to the main body, respectively it is just the job of adding an arm and giving it a colour.
  

(2020-05-02, 16:48)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Mandate? Where then?
I'm beginning to feel that we shouldn't have started adding the Bricklink number in the dat-files. The number might be changed in an external source.
And for me, the review process is longer, when I have to check every Bricklink number in our files.

(2020-05-02, 18:46)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Have you ever tried to find a specific minifig head in the library with nothing to go on but a picture? It's tough.

(2020-05-02, 18:27)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Let's back up here since I sense that we mostly agree but disagree on a few specifics.

There are currently 2 options:

a) Put files for complete assemblies for all patterns into the Library

Pros:
- Easier to find patterns from set inventories
- Better sync with the rest of the part cataloging community

Cons:
- A large amount of files to add to the library

b) Put files for generic assemblies in the library but nothing pattern specific

Pros:
- Far less library overhead
- Easier to inline and change

Cons:
- Difficult to find a specific pattern especially for patterns with subtle variations
- Not the way other part cataloging site list parts

As this is a summary, I'll post my thoughts as a reply

(2020-05-03, 13:24)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Now that most of the major players have chime in here's a summary:

1) Consensus is that we should not have complete assemblies (except generic assemblies)

(2020-05-03, 13:24)Orion Pobursky Wrote: 2) For all future patterned parts a set number should be listed in the KEYWORDs. Bricklink/Brickset/Rebrickable number can be listed at the authors option.

Personal note: Point 2 seems to suggest a further need for an ALIAS meta (first suggested by Chris?)