Unofficial File parts/74656p01.dat
part image
File Header:
0 Duplo Car Base  2 x  6 with Red Wheels
0 Name: 74656p01.dat
0 Author: Philippe Hurbain [Philo]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Shortcut
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 !CATEGORY Vehicle

Status:
2 subfiles aren't certified. (CCSSN)
Size: 465 bytes
Reviewers' certifications:
Cheenzo=certify
MagFors=certify
Philo=novote
Steffen=novote
UR=novote
Required (unofficial) subfiles:
~Duplo Car Base 2 x 6
Status: 1 subfile isn't certified. (CCCSN)
Download: parts/2312.dat
~Duplo Car Base 2 x 6 Wheel
Status: 1 subfile isn't certified. (CCCSN)
Download: parts/2313a.dat
Related (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)
File reviews and updates:
At Sat Aug 15 17:25:01 2020, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: Philo
At Sun Sep 13 21:40:02 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.

At Sun Sep 13 23:10:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: hold
Comments:
part number appears strange to me: why is this ...p01 and not ...c01?
shouldn't this be numbered 2312c01.dat

At Mon Sep 14 08:10:02 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
Because 74656 is already the name of the assembly.
https://brickset.com/parts/design-74656

At Mon Sep 14 15:30:02 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
Yes, I agree with Philo. This is the right way.
https://brickset.com/search?query=74656&scope=All

At Tue Sep 15 08:25:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Cheenzo
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.

At Sun Oct 4 00:40:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: hold
Comments:
I am sorry, but this still is not a patterned part.
this is the only file abusing the "p..." suffix numbering for this purpose.
it should be renumbered to some "c..." suffix.

At Sun Oct 4 07:05:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
Definitely DON'T agree with Steffen.

At Sun Oct 4 07:50:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Cheenzo
Certification: certify
Comments:
I can understand he disagrees with pXX as there is no print on the wheels which are built with colored plastic.
However, I cannot agree either with cXX as 74656 is already the design ID of the assembly...

I'm fine with pXX for now but maybe using 74656a, 74656b, ... would be a better compromise?... or should the Official Library Part Number Specifications be updated to address such cases?

At Sun Oct 4 09:15:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
I'm sorry Steffen, but this is accepted practice.

Have a look at these parts:
12622p01, Car Base with integral wheel plates, Unofficial
63710p01, Duplo figure adult male, Official
47511p01, Duplo figure child boy, Unofficial
47510p01, Duplo figure child girl, Unofficial
74948p01, Minifig Compass, Official
74948p02, Minifig Compass, Unofficial
15336p01, Motor Inertia Flywheel, Unofficial
15336p02, Motor Inertia Flywheel, Unofficial
14397p01, Minifig head biscuit, Unofficial
14397p02, Minifig head biscuit, Unofficial
21019p01, Minifig hips and legs with red lower leg, Official
21019p02, Minifig hips and legs with blue lower leg, Official
21019p03, Minifig hips and legs with orange lower leg, Official
-----
21019pd87, Minifig hips and legs white with green sandals, Official

... and many more.

At Sun Oct 4 09:55:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
The p-suffix is used in three occasions.

Different prints on the same brick.
On a multi injection part with differently coloured sections.
Differently coloured assemblies with a known assembly number.

Maybe this info could be placed on the pattern reference page? And maybe that section of the reference page should be changed.
A "pattern" could be created in a dual mould, or assembly, not only as a "print".

At Sun Oct 4 16:35:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: hold
Comments:
> Differently coloured assemblies with a known assembly number.

That is completely new to me and comes as a total surprise.
I would always have assumed something like that would be a ....c01, .....c02, assembly.

Can we come to a solution here and use ...c01, ...c02, .... numbers?
Using the c01, c02 suffixes to me appears completely canonical: These names indicate different assemblies.

If doing that is out of your range of possible solutions, I will retract my hold and accept the ...p01, ...p02, although I totally don't understand it,
because, very simple:
This is not a patterned part.
At Sun Oct 4 16:55:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
Please lift your vote. There nothing here that needs a solution. This is accepted practice.
Here is another example:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=73200&scope=header

At Mon Oct 5 02:20:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: hold
Comments:
no worries, I will.
however, why are you giving a bunch of *patterned* parts as counterexample? I *really* do not understand this whole thing of using p here!

At Tue Oct 6 15:10:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
73200 = 3815bc01 = 3815b + 3816b + 3817b
73200p01 = 3815bc01p01 = 3815bp01 + 3816bp01 + 3817bp01

I see no difference between a patterned assembly, created of colorized parts or printed (maybe dual-moulded) parts, if we know the assembly number.
I see no reason to continue this. If you want to question this, bring it up in the forum.
Please lift your vote, both here and on the biscuit heads, 14397p01-p04.

At Tue Oct 6 15:50:01 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: UR
Certification: novote
Comments:
Therefore, strictly speaking, both endings should apply - c as well as p?
It's a bit confusing.
Even though a plain color is not a pattern in my eyes, but simply a color - and nothing more.

But well, if the rules have been implemented this way up to now, then that's the way it is!

Still, if this type of confusion occurs, I don't think it's a good procedure to immediately set off a chain reaction of holds. That is rather suboptimal.
As has been done again and again in other cases - something like this definitely belongs in the forum for clarification.

A neutral comment with a corresponding link does it completely.

At Tue Oct 6 22:20:02 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
removing hold.
I am still not convinced by the counterarguments.
using the p01 numbering here to me still seems wrong.

At Tue Oct 6 22:25:02 2020, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
it should be c01 instead IMHO.