Forum:An even newer parts numbering system

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Forums - An even newer parts numbering system
This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page.


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Well, we've just started implementing a new parts numbering system. I'm proposing we scrap that entirely. Here's why:

  • Jeyo asked me about why Brickset recently had put bracketed numbers under the Element ID's their parts in the inventories (example). On further investigation, I found that they are Design IDs. These Design IDs also are imported straight from LEGO's replacement parts pages (if you go to the official replacement parts page, say you're missing a part from some set and click on a part, you'll see that now both its Element and Design IDs come up, instead of just its Element ID). So, this means a few things-
    • In many cases, we are using incorrect Design IDs. An example of this is a stud- which we have as Part 4073, the number Peeron and I think Bricklink use. LEGO lists this as 6141.
    • Worried about the whole printed parts need separate pages (which is why we made this new system)? Apparently, printed parts have different Design IDs from each other- eg, using this inventory (and I checked it on LEGO's replacement parts site just to be completely sure) 10967 is used for Pre Vizsla's helmet, and 93053 is used for the standard Mandalorian helmet- same part, different printing. Yet unprinted parts share the same Design ID, for example 6141 for the jetpack piece in both colours listed on the same page.
So, I'm suggesting we change to the official numbering system NovaHawk 22:41, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • So confused...but okay. :P (Sorry, KoN) Berrybrick 22:48, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • If it means printed parts end up on the same page I'm fine. Also, if we are going to be using different part numbering systems than Peeron and Bricklink, we need to have these in the infobox somewhere. We don't whant to completely ignore their numbers, as I think we get a lot of info from those sites. User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature
  • OK ~ CJC 16:36, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • We could just use the part numbers from LDD. –Agent Charge 17:51, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless I am mistaken, the part numbers from LDD are the Design IDs. Either that or the Part IDs...anyway, not everybody has LDD and not even close to every piece is available. It would leave a lot of gaps open. Berrybrick 18:53, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


To any bot owners[edit source]

  • Would it be possible to place a template on all part articles? (one that says something like "Brickipedia is currently undergoing a change with the naming of part articles, and this name is outdated"?) NovaHawk 23:45, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. If I remember next time I have time for stuff, I'll give it a run (Unless someone else does it). ~ CJC 17:03, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

600px-Yes check.svg.png Done. Why not just add it above the infobox in {{part}}? See {{Partnames}} User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature

Because, even if the name is corrected, it will still say "this name is outdated", when it isn't? ~ CJC 20:41, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Per CJC. I think the message should say, "may be outdated" instead of the absolute "is outdated". Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 04:49, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest adding a similar message to inventory articles. Something like this: "Brickipedia is currently undergoing a change with the naming of part articles and this inventory lists parts that may have incorrect or outdated design IDs." Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 05:43, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

  • I guess I really should have explained my first post here better. The main reason I suggested that this template be made was so that we could keep track of the parts which are correctly named and those which aren't (with a hidden category in the template). So, if every part article first gets the template, then the template is removed on the part article when it is correctly named, we could see which articles are still in need of moving. Otherwise this would get very confusing, and people would be either not knowing or forever checking to see whether a part article is at the right number. @Jeyo- sounds a good idea to have that for inventories as well, although, if we're creating redirects to the new part numbers, it shouldn't be a huge deal, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. NovaHawk 08:44, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys, my PC has died so my bot is out of action. ~ CJC 00:57, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • I can do it, just tell me what template/text you want put on. (and is it all part pages that need it?) User:Captain Jag/sig1 03:32, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • Well it's not all of them, I think a couple have been moved to the new numbers, but it's defintiely the vast majority, so it'd be easier to just do them all and remove those which have been moved. If you could manage to put {{Partnames}} under the rating, that'd be great :) NovaHawk 04:05, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I've modified the {{Partnames}} template so that when the parameter "inventory" is added the message will instead say, "Brickipedia is currently undergoing a change with the naming of part articles and this inventory lists parts that may have incorrect or outdated design IDs.". Could bot owners add this to all the inventory articles? Thanks, Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 08:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, I have finally decided to get on and do this. User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature

Names?[edit source]

  • The customer support inventories also have a name attached to each part, like in the style on LDD (I'm guess they are the same). Should this name be able to be added to the part infobox? NovaHawk 08:44, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that'd be a good idea. That way anyone searching for, say, Darth Vader's Helmet could find the part without having to know the Design ID. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 19:23, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Implementation[edit source]

If people suddenly start naming parts according to this new system, it'll be a bit crazy. We will have twice the problem as before because all around the wiki there will be Design IDs from two or more sources. No one will know which are correct and which aren't, save for the few who actually follow this sort of stuff.

Looking around on Brickset, I noted that every single torso design of any colour, printed or not, that was ever released, has the design ID 76382. This creates another rather substantial problem, as the torso for a Stormtrooper is not the same as the one as Jay's, obviously. And yet they have the same ID.

So what I'm suggesting is to create a "master page" for the torso part. (I'm using torsos just for example; this would apply to all parts.) This "master page" will include in the gallery of variants every single torso variation we know of and it will link to the individual variations' articles. We'll change the name of the variations like so: Part 973-1177c01 will be changed to Part 76382/Pre Vizsla. That will identify the variation as Pre Vizsla's torso piece while also linking to the master page. To implement this, we must first stop all part and inventory article creation. If people continue to use bricklink's and/or Peeron's system, we'll have the problem I mentioned in the beginning: a widespread problem of IDs from two sources. So to prevent that, we have to handle the part articles as I just mentioned, with the master pages. We can then proceed to convert the rest of the part names. What do you think? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:14, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

  • (Just saying I've seen this, and need to think about it further before actually saying anything NovaHawk 03:56, November 11, 2012 (UTC))


  • Moving to new names, and people recreating parts with old names:
    • Aren't we redirecting from the fan-based names to the official ones when the pages are moved, meaning that this won't really be a problem (and I therefore don't really see a need to stop part creation :S If someone makes a wrongly named page, let them know on the talk page, if they persist after a few warnings, block, just like people going around incorrectly categorising pages)
  • Same minifigure torso:
    • Oh no :/ That's really weird that they have separate Design IDs for the helmets with different printing but not torsos.
  • Suggestion for names (like Part 76382/Pre Vizsla):
    • What about unlicensed minifigs with no names, or two different minifigures which have the same torso? The way I see it, we could partially incorporate the old scheme and have something like 76382-001, 76382-002, etc, or (and I think this would be better) is to have the Element ID as a second identifier, for example "Part 76382 (456432)" where 456432 would be the element ID (I just made that number up).
  • Master pages- I'd be ok with that, but I think we should come up with a template for that instead of making people type them out manually- this would be very easy to do with Semantic (just list every page with a design ID of 76382 in its infobox, and stick a picture from the infobox into a part gallery)
    NovaHawk 04:05, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


  • Re: Moving to new names, and people recreating parts with old names:
    • Stopping part creation would be only temporary so we can update all the other part articles before moving on. But yes, your plan for that is better.
  • Re: Same minifigure torso:
    • I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not...
  • Suggestion for names (like Part 76382/Pre Vizsla):
    • I think the "76382-001" idea might work out, but would there be any order or pattern to the numbers? Or would we just assign the numbers randomly to whichever part we get to first? (A vague idea I had was naming it after the printing. "76382/Striped Suit Design" or something. I wasn't sure about it, though, so I didn't present it here.)
  • Re: Master pages
    • Template - Sounds good.
    • Part Gallery - That was the plan.
    Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 06:56, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


  • Re: Same minifigure torso: Umm, no, no sarcasm intended- I don't get why the Mandalorian, Boba Fett and Pre Vizsla helmets all have separate Design IDs when their only difference is the printing pattern, yet the minifigure torsos all have the same ID.
  • Part names- yeah, I can't see there being any order to the 001, 002, etc. scheme, which is why I suggested using the Element ID in the title instead. Even if we try to order it by release date, if we miss one, well, that will mean you'd have to move up to 1000 pages or so every time a new one was discovered.
  • Part Gallery- (just clarifying, that could also be part of the template, with the infobox picture also being grabbed semantically)
    NovaHawk 07:07, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


  • Re: Same minifigure torso: (I felt like I worded that wrong, but I didn't know how else to put it. I know you aren't one for sarcasm. Sorry D:) That's interesting...is there a way to contact Brickset and ask?
  • Re: Part names: The only misgivings I have about the element IDs being added to the titles is that it might confuse people, as they wouldn't know which is the Design ID and which isn't. (Some might not even know there's a difference between the Design and Element ID, or even what the Element ID is; I didn't before joining the wiki.)
  • Re: Part Gallery: (Again, I feel I worded that in a not-so-nice fashion.) Yeah, good idea.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 07:22, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


Something about the idea to use "001" and "002" randomly rubs me the wrong way. I went ahead with this one as a test...what do you think? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 04:18, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

No! D: What happens if Koon's torso is used for another figure? User:Darth henry/Sig 04:21, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
Most likely it won't be, but if it is we can rename it to the printing it has on. Part 76382/Brown Jedi Robes or something. Any other ideas are welcome, though. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 04:24, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
I still like using the element id in brackets or separated by a slash or dash- that way there's no subjectivity with the name of the article or confusion over how to name unnamed minifigure torsos :S NovaHawk 04:30, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
That does sound good. My only reservation, as mentioned before, is that it would confuse people. However, it's better than my idea...I guess we should put it to a vote. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 04:35, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a big long line of numbers could be a bit worrying :S NovaHawk 04:50, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
Brickset now lists the individual parts by their element ID. But then that leads us back to your idea of having "Part Example123/Example687"... Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 04:58, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
After pondering over this, I think your idea is best. And seeing as no one else has suggested anything else...I think I'll begin implementation of it. Demonstrated here. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 20:33, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
  • Could somebody sum up the wall of text above me? I can't read it for long without getting bored and stopping. Berrybrick 20:11, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, so: every torso piece, printed or not, has the design ID 76382. Obviously, this is a problem because we have a ton of torso pages and they all follow peeron or bricklink's system, which is incorrect. So, to keep the torso pages separate, NBS and I concocted a solution: sub-pages. Part 76832/6903487 (example number) would be one specific torso variation. Beause of the slash in the title, it would link back to the master page, Part 76382. That master page, would in turn link to every single torso piece variation. Now comes the next question: how do were separate the individual torso pages? Or in other words, what is that long number in the itle that comes after the master page name? Well, it's the element ID. Every piece has its own Element ID. Those are the numbers located at the back of set instructions. So, yeah. That's the plan whenever different parts have the same Design ID. We use Element ID subpages. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 21:03, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay. The only thing is the masterpage, especially in cases such as with torsos where it would be too long. What about a category instead? (Category:Part 76382 in this case) Berrybrick 21:12, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not a bad idea...Yeah, I like it. In that way, a bot can add every part under the category "Minifigure Torsos" or ones that start with "973" to the "Master page category" instantly! And we then can change the part names consecutively and with ease! :D Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 21:14, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
          • Jeyo and I had the following discussion in chat:
ChatDiscussion.PNG

Berrybrick 01:49, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit source]

Can someone please summarise the numbers system for me? I think that there are Part/Element/Design IDs, which ones are the ones inside the brick, and which ones are the ones in the instructions? User:Captain Jag/sig1 02:35, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Design ID = Part ID. It's what the titles of our part articles are. It's the name of a particular mould and is found engraved on the brick.
The Element ID is found in the back of instructions manuals. it lists the individual printed or coloured variations of a mould. The Element ID is generally a longer string of numbers than the Design/Part ID. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 02:41, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Element IDs are not unique to parts. They are the same sort of number used on sets, merchandise, instruction booklets etc. On sets they are called item numbers (they are above/near the barcode). See 30161 for a page that lists those numbers. We also use them for gear where we don't know the set number. ~ CJC 17:06, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Catwoman[edit source]

  • I've been redoing some of the DC inventories, and I found that Catwoman's torso has two variations. The difference is a white line on the neck, which most minifigures have but the BrickSet inventories seem to rarely show. Which Element ID would I use?[1] Berrybrick 12:22, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know what to tell you. :S Brickset is still in the Beta stage with their parts numbering system and I've often seen identical pieces listed side-by-side - with each apparently appearing in a different number of sets! Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 07:34, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
      • I own the set, and her torso has the white stripe on it. Therefore, I would go with that. If we're wrong, we can just change it back later. -User:Nerfblasterpro/sig1 20:23, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
        • Whenever I get around to editing again, I will probably do that and just create a redirect for the other. Berrybrick 21:18, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forum:An_even_newer_parts_numbering_system&oldid=872240"