Brickipedia:Forum/New parts numbering system

Forums - New parts numbering system

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. As per NBS's comment on CJC's blog - we desperately need a new method of assigning numbers to printed parts (including minifigure torsos and legs). Before we've mainly used Bricklink's system... the major flaw in that though is that Bricklink assigns the same type of numbers to printed parts as it does stickered parts (example). I think we can all agree that stickered parts should not be given numbers or seperate entries, because: We're not a shopping website for individual bricks, so no-one would want to look up a page of a stickered part. LEGO list the part and the full sticker sheet as separate pieces. Thus, so should we. Now obviously because this is the case it wouldn't make sense to continue using Bricklink's method of naming printed parts as several numbers would be missing. For example, we'd have: Part 87613pb01 [printed] Part 87613pb02 [printed] Part 87613pb03 [stickered] Part 87613pb04 [printed] And so leaving gaps in the database. Plus, as CJC said we should stop copying other sites' ways of naming and numbering things. I propose a new Brickipedia-exclusive method of naming printed parts: Simply adding an "-01" or "-02", etc suffix as the end of the mould number. This would result in: Part 87613-01 [Bricklink number is 87613pb01] Part 87613-02 [Bricklink number is 87613pb02] Part 87613-03 [Bricklink number is 87613pb04] They would be in chronological order, the part number with the lowest suffix would be the first printed variant of that part released, and the last one the latest. One thing I haven't thought about yet though is how to number official parts made up of several smaller parts of different colours and printing (Minifigure torsos and legs). Comment away! - 16:43, September 27, 2012 (UTC) So far I really like this proposal. It will help make Brickipedia more unique whilst still using a sensible numbering system for parts. Full support. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Welcome to Click a Brick! 17:17, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Support (although perhaps we need to use some sort of conjecture template) ~ CJC 18:44, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Using a conjecture template on every single part page that this applies to would look a bit odd... I'm thinking something like a disclaimer on a Parts portal. - 18:45, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Read it, not much to say except support Clone gunner commander jedi talk Per KoN, and SKP. Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 19:55, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Per KoN, I have full support. Agent Swipe(talk) I'm not looking forward to setting it up (unless a bot could do it, though I doubt that), but per SKP. --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:36, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Support, I think. Definitely like the system better, however what I'm wondering is do we need separate pages for printed parts? As far as I remember, we always went by Design ID, and the design ID's are the same for a part whether they're printed or not. Also, if this new numbering system was to be used, shouldn't it be -001? I can see some printed parts getting at least into the hundreds (minifig torsos) NightblazeSaber 23:12, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Could we not have just a subpage for printed ones (or multiple for the long ones)? ~ CJC 15:28, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Support Should be able to do by bot as well. - nxt Actually, per NHL, why not have one page for each part that is the same shape as in, Part 87613-01, Part 87613-02, Part 87613-03 would all be on the same page. We always have part articles that are pretty much empty, and if the printings/stickers/whatever were all on the same page, there would be more to write about. (You could compare printings as well). (To those who will say "but what if there are 50 printings", you can't write that much on each printing, you could have a simple bulleted list that wouldn't take that much space, (maybe make it collapsible or add a "see more" link)) - nxt Actually, that's not a bad idea. It kinda solves the "conjecture" problem as well. - 17:36, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Per NBS Agent Charge Please vote 20:01, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Support. I think it is a good idea. Per NBS and SKP. Agent Fuse Talk [[Special:Editcount/Agent Fuse|Special:Editcount/Agent Fuse Edits!]] Grammatic Fanatic 05:09, September 29, 2012 (UTC) Implementation I've done a quick sketch of what the new part pages might look like over on Part 57557... but if I'm honest, we need a new part template. - 11:02, September 29, 2012 (UTC)