Require Bricklink ID for pattern parts

[Orion Pobursky]

I'd like to revise the Library guideline to require the Bricklink patterned part ID in the keywords. This is already (mostly) standard practice, I'd just like to codify it. This will also make it easier for sites like Rebrickable to automate pattern cross referencing.

[Willy Tschager]

I'd like to revise the Library guideline to require the Bricklink patterned part ID in the keywords. This is already (mostly) standard practice, I'd just like to codify it. This will also make it easier for sites like Rebrickable to automate pattern cross referencing.

I veto. This is the same as:

Official Library Policy On Embedding POV-Ray Code

We cannot control BL's numbering. If someone adds them I'm fine with it but it shouln't be a requirment.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

I veto. This is the same as:

Official Library Policy On Embedding POV-Ray Code

We cannot control BL's numbering. If someone adds them I'm fine with it but it shouln't be a requirment.

w.

I don’t really see the analogue since once a number is chosen it (very likely) will not change. How about strongly suggest but not require then?

[Gerald Lasser]

I don’t really see the analogue since once a number is chosen it (very likely) will not change. How about strongly suggest but not require then?

I would support having the BL number there, would ease the search for the parts in the editors (that may be aware)
The BL number is not under our control and mostly (with a few rare exceptions) the printed part is first assigned a number on BL before we author them.

In my opinion, the BL number makes more sense than adding the Set Number for "generic" parts. Apart from a few very special (licenced) pieces, e.g 30216, 30215, there will be a reuse ultimately by TLC for most parts that are introduced at a point in time.

[Chris Dee]

I'd like to revise the Library guideline to require the Bricklink patterned part ID in the keywords. This is already (mostly) standard practice, I'd just like to codify it. This will also make it easier for sites like Rebrickable to automate pattern cross referencing.

I agree. Is it OK to expect software to parse all the '0 !KEYWORDS' lines to find a bricklink xxxxx element or should we introduce a '0 !BRICKLINK' directive?

[Orion Pobursky]

I agree. Is it OK to expect software to parse all the '0 !KEYWORDS' lines to find a bricklink xxxxx element or should we introduce a '0 !BRICKLINK' directive?

I don't think the we need a new meta. If we do go that route then it should probably be something more generic like 0 !CROSS_REF.

[Orion Pobursky]

I veto. This is the same as:

Official Library Policy On Embedding POV-Ray Code

We cannot control BL's numbering. If someone adds them I'm fine with it but it shouln't be a requirment.

w.

The more I've though about this, the more I disagree with your stance. My biggest objection to POV code (and I was the one who pushed that directive) was that it could affect part appearance if the POV-Ray SDL changed. In this case if the BL part number changed, nothing appearance related would be affected.