Main Page

From Deskthority wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The deskthority wiki is dedicated to mechanical keyboards, mice and other human interface devices. The main focus is everything regarding quality (mechanical) keyboards. In the nature of a wiki, the content will be frequently and constantly under construction. Want to share your knowledge and help us create the best input device wiki? This wiki is part of the deskthority forum - sign in with your forum account and start editing! There is no separate registration, and this is an open wiki. For discussions about the wiki, requests for higher wiki rights or changes/addons to the wiki engine, see the wiki subforum.

We currently have 1,118 articles, 8,630 pages and 26,611 edits.

Looking to contribute, but not sure what needs to be done? See the list of pages needing work to be done on them!

Keyboards / PCBs

Keycaps

List of all group buys


Latest posts from the Deskthority wiki talk forum

  • tactica (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:49:11 +0200) Err... Yes, I do
  • 002 (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 04:21:04 +0200) This is off-topic but tactica, do you have Spanish selected in your wiki language preferences by any chance?I noticed the other week that the DT twitter wiki bot started tweeting in Spanish and webwit suggested it might be because of this setting
  • tactica (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:30:22 +0200) Muirium wrote:Oh yeah, I've definitely got more thoughts about wiki organisation than I have desire to actually wrangle the damned thing in person. Um, any chance we could have a… I want to say standard form but I guess I essentially mean a bloody wizard. So clods like us can't screw up the most basic stuff while we dump core in new pages?It's not that difficult. I learned the basics by experimenting, previewing what I was doing before comitting my changes, copying&pasting from other pages... I didn't know a word about wikis until I started editing this one. I've barely began scratching the surface but it's enough to edit anything and add new content in a fluid manner.Ah come on, you can do it! Besides, we are here to help each other in case of any doubts, and who knows, if you get into real trouble with markup you might receive some wisdom cookie from the Big Brother too
  • tactica (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:27:57 +0200) Ander wrote:I'm just thinking it'd be valuable to have the terminal M's mentioned here somewhere, as it's tricky to find info on them otherwise. They sometimes appear on eBay without photos of their connector (usually because the seller doesn't know how important that is), and it would be good to be able to ID them quickly and easily.I understand how you'd rather not include terminal M's on the Enhanced Keyboard page. They're not much use to most people without considerable modification, and the various terminal p/n's would clutter the list of "useful" M's. Would it make any sense to start a separate page for them?Or maybe it would be more practical to add them to Wikipedia's Model M page, as its p/n list's table format is more concise. Then there'd finally be a list of all known 101-key p/n's in one place.The table from Wikipedia is not more concise, just more complete because we, uh, basically didn't write down one yet If someone decided to search DT and collect P/Ns from Model Ms, I'm confident that (s)he would easily end up compiling a list longer than that. Or one might try asking IBM nicely I wouldn't limit the research to IBM Enhanced Keyboards only - I'd go for every single mechanical keyboard IBM has manufactured, though it would make sense to focus mostly on Ms and Fs as we know them today. I hear things get messy near the end of the cycle when Lexmark enters the picture and a single P/N suddenly refers to different boards at once, but all the data collected up to that point in time would come in handy, both as reference for everybody and also for those who at some point boldly move Ms and Fs from the common page they are sharing right now to separate pages, documenting each member of the family (XT, 5291, F-122, etc.) in more detail.Such list(s) of P/Ns might go into a separate page in the "Guides" section of the wiki, at least while they are in WIP status.Thoughts? Volunteers?
  • tactica (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:57:16 +0200) zts wrote:Oh, I agree with you, the standardization has huge benefits and can still be flexible enough to accept some deviations from the format. For example:==Design & Features=====Early Defective Batch======The Version Without the Fn Key======Too Slick ABS Keycaps Issue======Full Specs===I mean it could be flexible enough if there is some information important enough to deserve a subheading. "See also" is helpful for additional info. Maybe an optional "free style" section for prolific writers ... something like "additional info".OK. I'm happy as long as we can agree on the top level headings, so to speak "Trivia" is probably another one worth supporting as default.BTW, any thoughts about moving the plethora of Model F/Model M... boards into separate pages?Maybe we can extend the discussion in this thread:wiki-talk-f33/including-terminal-boards-in-ibm-enhanced-keyboard-article-t10478.htmlThe people (bhtooefr, Mu, seebart, andrewjoy, Ander) there seem to have some thought about the classification and other issues. Pretty sure they can help in regards to the Model F/M. Or a new thread.Definitely. And another thread I overlooked in my rush to ask...
  • Muirium (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:19:02 +0200) Oh yeah, I've definitely got more thoughts about wiki organisation than I have desire to actually wrangle the damned thing in person. Um, any chance we could have a… I want to say standard form but I guess I essentially mean a bloody wizard. So clods like us can't screw up the most basic stuff while we dump core in new pages?
  • zts (Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:10:16 +0200) tactica wrote:Well, you asked for a style guide so you do the research on that I agree that information is more important than uniformity, yet uniformity helps not to miss the details and enhances readability. I have previous experience documenting software so I tend to favour order and standardization over chaos free style. ...Oh, I agree with you, the standardization has huge benefits and can still be flexible enough to accept some deviations from the format. For example:==Design & Features=====Early Defective Batch======The Version Without the Fn Key======Too Slick ABS Keycaps Issue======Full Specs===I mean it could be flexible enough if there is some information important enough to deserve a subheading. "See also" is helpful for additional info. Maybe an optional "free style" section for prolific writers ... something like "additional info".BTW, any thoughts about moving the plethora of Model F/Model M... boards into separate pages?Maybe we can extend the discussion in this thread:wiki-talk-f33/including-terminal-boards-in-ibm-enhanced-keyboard-article-t10478.htmlThe people (bhtooefr, Mu, seebart, andrewjoy, Ander) there seem to have some thought about the classification and other issues. Pretty sure they can help in regards to the Model F/M. Or a new thread.
  • tactica (Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:07:07 +0200) Well, you asked for a style guide so you do the research on that I agree that information is more important than uniformity, yet uniformity helps not to miss the details and enhances readability. I have previous experience documenting software so I tend to favour order and standardization over chaos free style.BTW, any thoughts about moving the plethora of Model F/Model M... boards into separate pages?
  • zts (Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:24:32 +0200) ^ the other way around this is to check the most prolific DT wiki authors, like beardsmore, 002 and others who have displayed either a great technical knowledge or great documentation skills or both, and see what they have in common in terms of formatting, references, chapters, paragraphs, etc. These people are most likely to get upset about the simplification (dumbing down) process that templating/uniformity often leads to. Balancing the chaos and order without losing DT wiki personality is an art form
  • tactica (Wed, 01 Jul 2015 19:51:21 +0200) zts wrote:Looks good, I guess, just depends on how much flexibility is allowed ... Some wiki authors have a great deal of knowledge about specific keyboards or switches, etc. and confining them into a template may be a difficult task. Should be some type of balance between the need for consistency/uniformity and non-templated needs. Anywho ...Well... Sure, but you have to start at some common ground. I don't mind to clean up after someone else entering the really juicy stuff, but you need a reference to go by.The gallery should contain the full gallery name:example -- Gallery: TheBestKBthat allows for additional gallery and/or sub-galleries in the future:Hmm... You can do the same using separate <gallery ... caption="text"> markup, which IMO looks neater. Just like you don't use several separate sections named somehow the same to refer to different variants since you already have the "Variants" section for that. A single "Gallery" section is IMO cleaner and less prone to confusion.BTW, I'd leave KBT/KBC as it is/was -- one of them may get offended if classified under the other. The common ground there is Vortex as the OEM for both.Yeah, I wan't very sure with that edit... OK, I just undid those changes. Thanks