Chap, how - on the earth's oil that is chemically enhanced

[chimborazo]

...so you could type onto the device and shuffle categories around as you please, is that link justifiable?

Eventually I will get it over, but could you provide me with your far foggy rationale as to why is that the case?

Don't tell me to understand the wiki, because it ain't about religion, or because that is the normative procedure to follow, because it ain't.

Unless said wiki is about companies, in which case you are better off by running it yourself.

[chimborazo]

Here is the page in question, or article, or whatever formal term is used.

kinesis modified.png (112.08 KiB) Viewed 8041 times

And here is the article with the revision.

kinesis modified.png (112.08 KiB) Viewed 8041 times

The list of products of Kinesis Corporation is delegated to a link, so your far foggy rationale manages to provide a link that says nothing about the products, but , upon reading this, you probably will offer some sort of digressive eloquence as usual, akin as when something is read, where little of importance was really said.

[chimborazo]

Bottom line is that the products' section is followed by a list of products. But the list of products is actually empty, because there are no products to list, only after the list is linked to another list, then there is a product list.

Anyway. Have a good one.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Wow.

I got a notification of this topic by e-mail earlier, and I deleted the e-mail thinking a spammer broke into the forum and was just typing complete gibberish.

As for the question you were trying to ask: the wiki is structured by categorisation. Categories are how you find everything. There is no hierarchy in a wiki engine, and all pages exist at the same level, so categories allow you to provide effective grouping and hierarchy. Many of the front page links just go to categories.

When you switched "Products" from a category link, to a list of specific products, you broke the way that the wiki works. You picked out two keyboards and listed them, when in fact the category gives four — so two of their products are no longer considered to exist in your eyes. Worse, anyone expanding the wiki will simply add their entries to the relevant categories, and won't realise that they have to also add duplicate entries onto the Kinesis page. This creates unpleasant inconsistencies and the need for vigilance and extra maintenance.

Essentially categories help to prevent inconsistencies and redundant data, plus they're far more powerful than static links, with support for multiple levels of subcategories and JavaScript-based instant drill-down navigation. Some companies have multiple categories under "Products" or "See also", typically companies that make both keyboard and switches, with one category each.

This is how the site has always been operated — all I've done in this regard is started to change "See also" to "Products", as it gives the reader a much stronger indication that the listed items are made by the company: "See also" could include similar products from rival companies, and I wanted to make it clear that the section was listing products from the named company.

You could argue that it would be better if the category could be inlined, i.e. the category entries automatically transcluded onto the page (so it would resemble a category page, essentially, without being in the Category: namespace). This may be possible, never tried. I never considered it that big a deal.

Certainly, though, if you tried to list of Cherry's keyboards AND switches the way you want, you'd discover the problem very quickly.

[rodtang]

Products (Click to view complete list):
Keyboards (Click to view complete list):
Notablekeyboard1
Notablekeyboard3
Notablekeyboard3

Mice (Click to view complete list):
Notablemouse1
Notablemouse2
Notablemouse3

Other: (depending on if these are input device related it might not need a complete list)
Notableother1
Notableother2
Notableother3

[chimborazo]

You could argue that it would be better if the category could be inlined, i.e. the category entries automatically transcluded onto the page (so it would resemble a category page, essentially, without being in the Category: namespace). This may be possible, never tried. I never considered it that big a deal.

Whether it could be done, it's not part of my argument, but it certainly makes sense. Something as pointed out by Rodtang.

Out of what you wrote, only the second and third paragraphs are relevant enough that will be quoted accordingly. (Relevant to this situation of course).

Let me start with the third paragraph.

Essentially categories help to prevent inconsistencies and redundant data, plus they're far more powerful than static links, with support for multiple levels of subcategories and JavaScript-based instant drill-down navigation. Some companies have multiple categories under "Products" or "See also", typically companies that make both keyboard and switches, with one category each.

This is exactly the purpose of my revisions to your edits - in this case to the Futaba linear switch article. Luckily there was no further undo on your part, except the number of parts of the switch (sixteen or fifteen).

futaba.png (118.77 KiB) Viewed 7912 times

Now the second paragraph.

When you switched "Products" from a category link, to a list of specific products, you broke the way that the wiki works. You picked out two keyboards and listed them, when in fact the category gives four — so two of their products are no longer considered to exist in your eyes. Worse, anyone expanding the wiki will simply add their entries to the relevant categories, and won't realise that they have to also add duplicate entries onto the Kinesis page. This creates unpleasant inconsistencies and the need for vigilance and extra maintenance.

Hehe.

There's a saying in Spanish that says "Desvistes un santo para vestir a otro". And that, is exactly what is happening to you. Although, with your reverted edit of what I fixed, you undress two, to save two, but in the end, neither of the four in question exist in the article page.

You are mainly concerned about inconsistencies when to the eyes, not only you are depriving in this case, two products to show, in order to save the rest. This is according to your logic, which is flawed.(In that respect).

Secondly, just to get something straight Daniel, when I decided to revise some articles, do you really think I went after a username? Do you really think so? Por favor.

If anything, I'm more concerned of the concomitant orphaned pages that have been overlooked by you, since who knows when. Those really exist. And are you aware that is considered bad implementation of the wiki?

What should we do? Take it to a vote? Or consult it further with wiki administrators from all over the world?

orphaned1.png (52.66 KiB) Viewed 7912 times

Not only you decided, that for example, the article Deck-21 key numeric keypad is considered a backlit keyboard based on essence. Essence of what? The same essence than my backlit cell phone, since it has a keyboard? According to your reasoning I shall create such article and link it to a manufacturer in the wiki. And maybe categorize it even if it doesn't show under the manufacturer.

deck21 after.png (142.81 KiB) Viewed 7912 times

[chimborazo]

You just reverted what I did. Even though you could have added the two Kinesis keyboards to the product's section. But no.

Funny thing is I was trying to fix something that was long overdue. But it's okay.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

The article did not say "backlit keyboard", it said "backlit". Yes, the target page is to backlit keyboards, but backlit number pads are identical to backlit keyboards. Same switches, same connection, same switch mounting, everything. "Backlit keyboard" is a concept that goes above and beyond the exact number of keys in your device. And yes, there's no reason why we can't include phones.

Basically I undid a rash of ill-conceived edits.

Strictly speaking, I am no longer concerned with anything in the wiki except (typically mechanical) Alps, outstanding photos that need uploading (mine or those Sandy has given me), and corrections to my existing work.

Since you've decided to make this into a big argument without rationally considering anything you did, I will bow out and leave you to do whatever you want. I no longer consider any of it to be my concern, except where you're messing up pages I'm still looking after, e.g. Futaba.

[chimborazo]

"Ill conceived edits".

Gracias! For some reason I was thinking the same of you when you decided to undid what I edited.

If you see the last edits I did "ill-conceived", I cared less whether those edits were actually yours or mine. If you see my edits, I was concerned of the orphaned pages that were getting out of hand. Most of the articles for patents for example, fell under the same, but I knew what to do with it, so I started with other articles.

Since you've decided to make this into a big argument without rationally considering anything you did, I will bow out and leave you to do whatever you want. I no longer consider any of it to be my concern, except where you're messing up pages I'm still looking after, e.g. Futaba.

messing up pages? I was just fixing the "Parts per switch" article that was in the overlooked orphaned list.

You are being unfair. If my "bad and silly implementation" reason after editing one of the articles, got to you, my apologies. I never thought you would take it literally and translate it as an ill-conceived practice.

Minutes before this thread, I was looking forward to finish some of the orphaned pages. Then I noticed that the Kinesis Evolution and Maxim pages were back in there. I thought: "Heck, if memory serves right I had fixed it already". Then I went to the respective articles' pages and noticed your reverted edits.

If anything I was trying to help you out and webwit with the wiki. I was only concerned with the patents until after I saw the orphaned pages.

And I second what you said. I am no longer concerned with the wiki except the patents, whenever I have the time to complete them.

[Icarium]

I think it might be more constructive to have discussions like this in the discussion section of the appropriate pages.

[chimborazo]

I think it might be more constructive to have discussions like this in the discussion section of the appropriate pages.

Icarium. It makes no difference. Since according to Daniel, my edits were "ill-conceived" and I pretty much messed up the page for the Futaba switch.

[JBert]

Ok, a small "edit battle" just happened, but no need to get seriously worked up over it. Please talk it out, discuss with people how to go forward and then try to stick to that plan.

I do want to add though that the "Orphaned pages" tool is lying - it doesn't pick up pages which are linked together by Categories, as can be seen here: http://www.mwusers.com/forums/showthrea ... ge-Filters
What you want to look out for are Uncategorised pages.

[chimborazo]

hey Jbert, I had noticed you appeared as logged in, but hadn't seen you around, since we exchanged opinions about an ol' fashioned typewriter, and a layout I think, like two years ago, back in gh. Good to see you. I read the link from mwusers.com

Nonetheless, the orphaned page will have no link.

"Unfortunately, no. You cannot change the rules for "Orphaned" pages. You'd either have to hack the special page or just add a link on the page".

The way I see it, Daniel assumed and jumped into the conclusion I edited most of the articles he has contributed to, in an ill-conceived fashion, when in reality it wasn't the case.

For example, I was trying to fix the "Parts per switch" article by adding it to the Futaba switch page, but then it's beyond me, that he considers it as if I "messed up" the article. So, chimborazo is messing up daniel's articles.

mwusers.com orphaned page.png (84.12 KiB) Viewed 7824 times

[chimborazo]

Besides, if the category listed four keyboards, and I added two (so the orphaned pages are no longer orphaned), why not add the other two keyboards, since it will not affect the categories for the keyboards...

forget it, this is a circular argument. I sound like a broken record.

[Soarer]

I do want to add though that the "Orphaned pages" tool is lying - it doesn't pick up pages which are linked together by Categories, as can be seen here: http://www.mwusers.com/forums/showthrea ... ge-Filters
What you want to look out for are Uncategorised pages.

That seems to be key to the whole misunderstanding!

What Daniel said (about categories) sounds perfectly logical, as in... Each kinesis keyboard page being tagged with the category is as much building of lists as you want to do. You don't want to hard-code that list into other pages, because then you have more work to do when you add another keyboard. Primarily, the wiki is information storage; presentation of that information is secondary. So transclusion or somesuch would be the 'right' way to improve the presentation.

Stepping back a little, what does the criticism of 'focus on the company' stem from? Seems about right to me, as a user, that the company page just gives a quick run-down of the product categories they're involved with. But is it the case that [kinesis] is being used in multiple places where [kinesis keyboard] might be more appropriate, so users get to the company page more often than would be ideal?

[Daniel Beardsmore]

WRT Futaba, you're confused. I did not like what you'd done to the Futaba linear switch page, but I left your change alone. (The only change I made was to correct the parts-per-switch comment you added, when I found a part that I'd missed.)

You are thinking of SMK vintage linear, where you misunderstood the subject material. You linked outwards from SMK vintage linear to BBC Micro Types 2, 3 and 4. Type 3 is PED, not SMK. The remaining pages (types 1, 2 and 4) exist solely to help people searching the web to identify switches using Chris Richardson's terminology, and point them to the correct page; as a result, you linked people to pages that would put them in a loop. The BBC Micro types are not switch types, they're terms given to the four keyboard types used in UK-made, UK-market Acorn BBC Microcomputer systems (PED, Futaba, and two SMK variants). There is insufficient evidence to differentiate Types 2 and 4 — we know that they differ in stem angle, but that's likely just a variant detail. It's suggested that Type 2 is a cheaper (60 p vs 83 p ea) version, and it's suggested that it was less reliable, but we have no definitive evidence of this. (I have these pages in a special category to indicate that they exist solely to help people match obsolete or external terms to actual products.)

Making changes to switch series you're totatlly unfamiliar with, requires care. If you do have doubts, you can always ask in this forum or in IRC first. For example, I tend to ignore the IBM keyboard and switch pages as I lack the knowledge to make corrections, and I'll check in IRC if I do feel there's something wrong but I'm not confident about making changes.

What is most definitely needed, is photos. Lots of them.

Also, various pages get forgotten. I had to update the MX Red page to indicate that it was not discontinued. The Majestouch page needs a ton of work still — I updated it somewhat, but not completely; it's also desperately short on illustration (Ninja/Black¹, camo, Italian Red, metallic blue, TKL, full-size, MINILA, detail of their exquisite pad printing, logo details, velcro cable tidy, etc.)

¹ The front-printed version is called "Black" in JIS layout and "Ninja" in US layout, per the Diatec site.

[chimborazo]

WRT Futaba, you're confused. I did not like what you'd done to the Futaba linear switch page, but I left your change alone. (The only change I made was to correct the parts-per-switch comment you added, when I found a part that I'd missed.)

Who said otherwise? I already said that "Luckily there was no further undo on your part, except the number of parts of the switch (sixteen or fifteen). "

You are thinking of SMK vintage linear, where you misunderstood the subject material. You linked outwards from SMK vintage linear to BBC Micro Types 2, 3 and 4. Type 3 is PED, not SMK.

To be honest. I stopped checking your reverted edits after the Kinesis keyboards and the Deck keypad.

And you are right. I was wrong. I will make sure it does not happen again.

[chimborazo]

Just for the record, I really wonder since when this discussion is based on the Special:Uncategorized pages

These are the orphaned pages (74) as of now

orphaned pages1.png (81.02 KiB) Viewed 7781 times

orphaned pages3.png (72.84 KiB) Viewed 7781 times

And this is the list of Uncategorized pages

uncategorized pages.png (57.03 KiB) Viewed 7781 times

[Soarer]

Is there a way to get it to list pages that are both orphaned AND uncategorised?

[chimborazo]

Is there a way to get it to list pages that are both orphaned AND uncategorised?

Soarer, I don't know about that. And it doesn't matter either way.

I fixed two orphaned pages. More than that, but let's focus on The Kinesis Evolution and the Kinesis Maxim. So those two pages were no longer orphans.

But Daniel was unaware of that. He was outraged (perhaps at the reason of my revision that read: "removed category within the SECTION of the article; bad and silly implementation"). And reverted my edit afterward.

So it's funny, because this is what he wrote:

"When you switched "Products" from a category link, to a list of specific products, you broke the way that the wiki works. You picked out two keyboards and listed them, when in fact the category gives four - so two of their products are no longer considered to exist in your eyes."

I removed a link that was just an empty list, entitled "Kinesis keyboards" that linked to the category article of the Kinesis keyboards, from within the section of the article of Kinesis Corporation. So the orphaned pages would cease to exist.

kinesis modified.png (112.08 KiB) Viewed 7757 times

So instead of adding the other two keyboards, he just reverted the edit.

Then I wrote that "...Minutes before this thread, I was looking forward to finish some of the orphaned pages. Then I noticed that the Kinesis Evolution and Maxim pages were back in there. I thought: "Heck, if memory serves right I had fixed it already".

So the pages (articles) with its respective links became orphans again. Great.

Then let's call the following an extraneous element. The infamous thread that jbert had the courtesy to provide which further obscured the topic at hand. The Orphaned Page Filters' discussion that was held over at mwusers.com.

You know what Soarer? No. That has nothing to do with this.

[webwit]

This wiki is organized a bit different from most wikis using the mediawiki software because it is organized for "browsing" navigation based solely on nested categories except for the custom front page. This sounds basic, but in reality most wiki have little consistent and navigable organisation throughout. I really like our structured approach, because it makes it actually easy to find or discover something unlike say wikipedia where you can only find something with google and articles relatively drift in a void, and discover from inline links only. Well not a void really, in wikipedia the articles have been added to categories too, but the main navigation is a variety of landing pages, something like our front page, and throughout people have their own ideas, and well, google only man. Maybe it just works different for us because we, unlike wikipedia and their mediawiki, have much more finite and less diverse subject matter. If we'd use our front page style everywhere it would make sure there are no orphaned pages, and probably suboptimised presentation, but it also means much more maintenance if the aim is to keep a consistent tree structure. I like it as it is, where navigation is automatically updated by adding articles to categories. It makes for better navigation, and keeps focus on the articles, not on maintaining landing pages or overview articles for switches, keyboards, brands, etc.

[Soarer]

Is there a way to get it to list pages that are both orphaned AND uncategorised?

Soarer, I don't know about that. And it doesn't matter either way.

I fixed two orphaned pages.

...

So the pages (articles) with its respective links became orphans again. Great.

...

You know what Soarer? No. That has nothing to do with this.

Whaddya mean "You know what Soarer?" - I'm just asking questions and giving my thoughts. There will be no peace 'til you calm down a bit - no matter whether you are right or wrong.

The way this wiki is organised, orphaned pages aren't broken, and don't need fixing - this is great, less work to do!

As a test, I just imagined I was trying to find out about Kinesis keyboards from the Main Page. My instinct was to go via Keyboards by brand, so then Kinesis Keyboards, and then I have all four entries to choose from. Can't see any problem there. Nor can I see a problem in the fact that it's one extra click to get to that list of four from the Kinesis Corporation page, but that's just my irrelevant opinion since transclusion would be the right way to put it there.

So as I understand it, ideally every (non-test) page should be categorised. Failing that, not be an orphan. The only truly unconnected pages are those which are both orphaned AND uncategorised.

[webwit]

Correct. Of course if something is of more importance, it will probably be linked from an article, but as long as it is in a categorized category (...) it can be found. For wikipedia, where the software comes from, an orphaned page is something to be fixed, but here it's perfectly acceptable if for example a keyboard is only part of categories, not articles, because categories are the main navigation instead of landing/overview pages.

[chimborazo]

Whaddya mean "You know what Soarer?" - I'm just asking questions and giving my thoughts. There will be no peace 'til you calm down a bit - no matter whether you are right or wrong.

sorry about that, but the "you know what" was related to the orphaned page filter discussion over at mwusers.com

The way this wiki is organised, orphaned pages aren't broken, and don't need fixing - this is great, less work to do!

As a test, I just imagined I was trying to find out about Kinesis keyboards from the Main Page. My instinct was to go via Keyboards by brand, so then Kinesis Keyboards, and then I have all four entries to choose from. Can't see any problem there. Nor can I see a problem in the fact that it's one extra click to get to that list of four from the Kinesis Corporation page, but that's just my irrelevant opinion since transclusion would be the right way to put it there.

The way i understand it, an orphaned article has no other article within the wiki that links to said article.

I agree with your example. Keyboards by brand →(four). Still, out of those (four), (two) of them, are not linked by any other article within the wiki.

Soarer:the word "broken" and "broke" have been used in this thread interchangeably, the former by you, the latter by Daniel. the other word "fix" and its derivatives, i am held responsible for , but only after the fist "broke" by Daniel.

Webwit and Soarer: the funny thing is, that at no point, the article Category:Kinesis keyboards was broken, since the articles Kinesis Evolution, Kinesis Maxim, Kinesis Advantage, and Kinesis Freestyle are categorized nonetheless. So mentioning the word "broken" only applies to the article "Kinesis Corp." in this case. But it does not mean that the wiki has been broken, or that someone broke the way the wiki works.

kinesis article improved.png (50.47 KiB) Viewed 7615 times

Let me repeat what i said, it is bad implementation for this fact. Had the article "Kinesis Corp" listed all the products like is shown above , whether those products ( articles Evolution, Maxim, Advantage, Freestyle) were linked or not, like I unintentionally accomplished prior to the edit that followed, then the orphaned pages (two) would have been linked (fixed), without further ado.

that's it. as simple as that. I think the last paragraph, along with the "bad and silly implementation" comment, on daniel's part, are the most noteworthy salient points in the whole thread. i for one, will come back here and read it, before bedtime.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

I think a summary would be: while we all appreciate people working on the wiki, one has to be careful about making changes before taking the time to understand why something is the way it is. Don't jump too hastily to the conclusion that something which appears wrong, really is wrong. It may not be.

[Soarer]

chimborazo: you are right in the definition of an orphaned article. But, by design, this wiki will have them. That is fine, and doesn't need working on.

Transclusion has been mentioned here, but not explained. In this case, we could use it to insert the list of pages in the Kinesis Keyboards category into the Kinesis Corp page. In that way, we wouldn't need to update the Kinesis Corp page manually when they produce a new keyboard and we add a new page for it in the category; it would be automatic.

It seems that there is more than one way to do it, depending on which extensions are installed.

A couple of quick tests using the Category Tree method mentioned there...

Code: Select all

<categorytree hideroot="true" namespaces="-">Kinesis keyboards</categorytree>

or

Code: Select all

{{#categorytree:Kinesis keyboards|hideroot|mode=pages}}

Kinesis_Corp_improved_better.png (48.07 KiB) Viewed 7578 times

Alternatively, changing the hideroot setting to false (or omitting it) produces an expandable tree that includes the category name...

Code: Select all

<categorytree namespaces="-">Kinesis keyboards</categorytree>

or

Code: Select all

{{#categorytree:Kinesis keyboards|mode=pages}}

Kinesis_Corp_improved_better2.png (48.22 KiB) Viewed 7578 times

I don't know whether we (collectively) want to do something like that. Personally I'm happy with having to click on Kinesis Keyboards to get to the list, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. It is certainly a smart way to achieve what you wanted, that I suspect you did not know about before.

(I do know the style of an included Category Tree isn't ideal, but looking into the details of how to improve it isn't worth it unless we want to use something like it here's one way to improve it. The main point is that the inclusion should be automatic).

[chimborazo]

Don't jump too hastily to the conclusion that something which appears wrong, really is wrong. It may not be.

Look who's talking. Ha! You make my day! It's wrong or it's not. So it must be wrong what you did. Because I was working in the orphaned pages and nothing else.

I think a summary would be: while we all appreciate people working on the wiki, one has to be careful about making changes before taking the time to understand why something is the way it is.

I think your social science background it's definitely affecting your other skills. Or maybe not. Perhaps you want to sound like a politician with the "We" and "people". It's okay. But people point out your faults faster than a collective aggregate dares to do so.

I don't know whether we (collectively) want to do something like that. Personally I'm happy with having to click on Kinesis Keyboards to get to the list, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. It is certainly a smart way to achieve what you wanted, that I suspect you did not know about before.

Soarer: You are right. I did not know it was possible, except from the Category Page itself with its respective subcategories, which is widely implemented on wikipedia.

It is great! And like you said: it is something that could be automatically done.

Thank you though. for taking the time to find more about this.

But to agree with it 'collectively' Soarer? That is something unclear at this point. Let me paraphrase the master himself since he couldn't do it, if asked. This is what Danny wrote: " I think a summary would be: while We appreciate it, people should not meddle."

Aw. No one is messing up, nor doing things ill conceived, nor much less following you around, all over the wiki, my dear Daniel. Could you jump into that conclusion instead?

You can have every kilobyte of what constitutes your wiki

[Daniel Beardsmore]

−1 Troll

[chimborazo]

−1 Troll

even though webwit is right in that: this is a dead thread, let me further add the following:

had you admit, calling my edits ''ill-conceived'' was wrong on your part, for what else would i edit your articles, had not been for the simple fact that your articles were orphans indeed.

but no. daniel choked after reading about the orphans in question, and simply threw the hands in the air, and threatened to leave the wiki altogether, if daniel did not get it his way.

but nope. daniel on the other hand assumed, that my edits had been ill-conceived with ill intention purposes, and was unable to ameliorate any differences or find a solution to the problem.

had not been for the involvement of outstanding members like soarer, who sorted out the root of the problem and pointed out the possible solutions and alternatives, this thread would have been a failed attempt at establishing the reason why my edits had been reverted in the first place.

but no. even though a solution was finally presented by soarer, far in the background there was daniel who had threatened to leave the wiki at first, and retracted his views later on, but only with the condition that no one but daniel were to edit the wiki as deemed appropriate.

one would think that daniel's latest responses offered not an apology, but at the very least, an acknowledgement that his ill conceived comments towards my edits were unwarranted.

[002]

Oh boy, here we go again...lol