Complete assemblies

[Orion Pobursky]

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.

[Orion Pobursky]

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.

For some context, I think this is a place where we're out of sync from the rest of the community. Every other cataloging site lists these as single parts. Honestly, I can't think of any compelling reason why we shouldn't (no, I don't think library "clutter" is a good reason to leave out parts that come as assemblies out of the bag) and it would help us sync better.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I think we should.

I agree. I even made this file years ago, but it is still not "accepted".
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=973c01

My reason for wanting this as an assembly is, that we need to provide shortcuts, gathering all the printed parts of an assembly, like we already do with minifig hips+legs.
And I want to also suggest that coloured arms, both printed and dual-moulded, must have the same patternnumber as the torso have. Like we do with the hips+legs.
What would be the correct partnumber to use on an assembly of a printed torso with dual-moulded arms with a printed pattern on the arms? Or a complete torso, but with printed arms? I think we need to have some rules about numbering and descriptions first.

I think we should only make shortcuts gathering printed parts, and not have assemblies containing only coloured parts.
(OTOH my first file have only yellow hands)

[Willy Tschager]

I'm fine with a single shortcut of torsi with hands/bird wings/flippers:

https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...973c01.dat
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../11938.dat
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../24319.dat

And if you wanna add a shortcut of a torso with dual molded arms I'm okay also with that ...

... but I do not see a necessity for patterned shortcuts:

https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...19ccfd.dat
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...19cd6e.dat

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.

However I would like to see these shortcuts grouped under:

Minifig Shortcut ...

Minifig Shortcut Torso with Bird Wing Arms
Minifig Shortcut Hips and Legs Faun
Minifig Shortcut Martian (Complete)
Minifig Shortcut Baby with ...

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

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.

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

[Willy Tschager]

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

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.

[Orion Pobursky]

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.

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.

[Willy Tschager]

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.

I'm not questioning the usefulness of shortcuts. I'm questioning the usefulness of (theoretically) adding 4351 torso assemblies currently listed at BL. Things like



Do you really think you're faster browsing, say, some 100 assemblies than inlining the complete minifig and substituting parts?

Beside the clutter. Who's gonna add them, who's gonna review them? If you're looking for a task there are:

572 certified files.
489 files need admin review.
1171 files need more votes.
1690 have uncertified subfiles.
295 held files

waiting for you over at the PT.

w.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I sort of agree with both of you.

We might need some sort of "shortcut", grouping printed torso with printed arms (and hips with legs).
But I would actually prefer to do this in a minifig generator.

There are some very complex patterned figures with a continuing pattern beginning on the back of the torso, across the arms, to the front of the torso, over the hips and finnishing on the legs. It would be great to find those parts in a shortcut, instead of inlining a minifig and having to sort out the correct pattern on every limb.

I think we made all the Fabuland figures only because it was a finite number to create.
Minidolls quickly spiraled out into a too large groups of figures.

Maybe this is too complex to handle in our library...

[Philippe Hurbain]

...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!)

[Orion Pobursky]

...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!)

So what your saying is that my cross ref project is preferable to torso assemblies and hip assemblies. This mean we should mandate some sort of external number (eg BrickLink, ReBrickable, BrickSet) for every pattern part going forward. Makes life significantly easier.

[Magnus Forsberg]

This mean we should mandate some sort of external number (eg BrickLink, ReBrickable, BrickSet) for every pattern part going forward.

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.

[Philippe Hurbain]

The number might be changed in an external source.

You have a point...

[Orion Pobursky]

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

[Orion Pobursky]

I have 2 major concerns:
1.) We need some good way to cross reference our part number for a pattern with that of the other part cataloging sites. This makes a users life significantly easier as they can look up a set inventory (official or MOC) and easily be able to find the part in our library. Have you ever tried to find a specific minifig head in the library with nothing to go on but a picture? It's tough.

2.) For those parts that are separable but do not typically come separate, we should have a good way to correlated the patterned and plain parts needed to recreate the assembly. I asked Rebrickable if there were plans to have an inventory for the individual parts in a patterned torso assembly (torso/arms/hands) (or hips/legs assemblies) and was tolds that this would probably never happen. This spurred my work cross-reference file which I'm trying to make generic enough that programs other than my PBG generator can use it.

Both of these are solved by have all LEGO produced assemblies in the library. If this is not the route we want to take (and honestly, after a little bit of reflection, I'm not as strongly for it as I was) then here are my proposed solutions:

1. Is solved by embedding some sort of external identifier in the KEYWORDS. Right now that is typically the Bricklink number. The concern is, rightly, that this number may change. Heck, we've changed our number using MovedTo's lots. So my new proposal is that we embed at least one set number for every patterned part. This will at least allow a user to dial down to a specific set and from there figure out the pattern for the set inventory.

2. The solution is already in the works. Philo wants to push it out even further to encapsulate entire minifigs, minidolls, etc... which I'm fine with. I'd like to see official support for the cross-reference file. I'm working on a web interface to add/change entries. This could be easily modified to allow anyone to submit an entry or correction and have it approved/denied by a single person

[Gerald Lasser]

I'm late to the party, but here is what I think:

• 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.
  

[Orion Pobursky]

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.

The converse to this argument is that it took me about 15 minutes to search the entire official library for BrickLink numbers and generate almost 200 cross-references to ReBrickable. Compare that to the literal hours I’ve spent comparing patterns for the parts without a good way to cross reference and I’m only a couple of hundred parts in. I think at least one LEGO set number in the KEYWORDs is a good compromise.

[Willy Tschager]

Have you ever tried to find a specific minifig head in the library with nothing to go on but a picture? It's tough.

Sure. Most of our descriptions are in sync with BL. Text search or a search within a catergory finds them easily. The only problem with the search is ... ROLAND ... that the result shows also hidden parts.

w.

[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.

[Orion Pobursky]

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) in the library unless we can automate inclusion, exclude them from full tracker review, and formalize the naming
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?)

[Willy Tschager]

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)

And the already existing should be renamed to:

Minifig Assembly ...

Minifig Assembly Torso with Bird Wing Arms
Minifig Assembly Hips and Legs Faun
Minifig Assembly Martian (Complete)
Minifig Assembly Baby with ...

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?)

I guess most of them already have a set number in the keywords.

w.