Complete assemblies

[Chris Dee]

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

In general I am supportive of option a.

I agree that KEYWORDS should include at least a 'set xxxx' or a 'bricklink xxxx' for patterned parts. What chance that we can get BrickLink to tell us when they renumber, or leave a stub in their database for renumbered files. Better would be the actual LEGO designation, since this would (most liklely) never change. Do we have any intelligence as to whether BrickLink will align its numbering with that of its new owner?

I'd be happier making these assemblies 'fast-track eligible' if they were script-generated - like I did aliases and the (now defunct) physical colour parts on the Tools page. The generator tools would not need to be restricted to admin(s). I'd need to check how easy it would be to make the PT submit them pre-approved. We would need a naming convention that supports multiple versions of a given torso pattern to accommodate different colour arms and/or hands.