Been doing some work in the Wiki

[LeaF]

One thing that I'd like to discuss - how we're going to reflect in SAKWiki this year's changes (I mean 2017) regarding 111-mm series?


Few ideas:
1. All slide-lock models which weren't replaced with the newest liner-lock models (Cowboy, Atlas) should be marked as 'Discontinued'
2. Models, which had changing locking mechanism from slide-lock to liner-lock (Outrider for example) should be added to the appropriate lists as separate models (Outrider 2 or Outrider 2017).
3. Models, which were relisted with new names (Nomad -> Picknicker,  Sentinel with corkscrew -> Alpineer) should be marked with the link to the new model.


What do you think about this?


P.S. Few months before I've created an Excel worksheet with changes in 111-mm series. Maybe it will be interested for someone.

[Huntsman]

For the models that converted to liner lock
- To keep things more concise, neater and to avoid duplication I would much prefer to add a note the History section of the affected knives stating that in 2017 this model was converted from a side lock to a liner locking blade.
 
Seems much simpler to me

I think this change is like a tool version change or a Champion gaining another layer, or the hook being added to models with scissors.

[pfrsantos]

For the models that converted to liner lock
- To keep things more concise, neater and to avoid duplication I would much prefer to add a note the History section of the affected knives stating that in 2017 this model was converted from a side lock to a liner locking blade.
 
Seems much simpler to me

I think this change is like a tool version change or a Champion gaining another layer, or the hook being added to models with scissors.

Maybe add some new pics, too.
 

Instead of saying "in 2017 this model was converted from a side lock to a liner locking blade." wouldn't it make more sense to say "prior to 2017 this model featured a side lock."? It would show the present model and its characteristics, making reference to a different configuration in the past. Most of the SAKs' entries in SAKWiki follow this form: show current model (when still in production), list all the different variations through time.
 

[LeaF]

For the models that converted to liner lock
- To keep things more concise, neater and to avoid duplication I would much prefer to add a note the History section of the affected knives stating that in 2017 this model was converted from a side lock to a liner locking blade.
 
Seems much simpler to me

I think this change is like a tool version change or a Champion gaining another layer, or the hook being added to models with scissors.

Let's see what we can do on simple example:


Picknicker (0.8853) - changed locking mechanism and became a Picknicker (0.8353)
Nomad (0.8353.3) - no changes. Renamed to Picknicker
Nomad (0.8351.C, 0.8353.MW3, 0.8351.MWC) - discontinued.


Forester (0.8363.3, 0.8361.MWC, 0.8361.C) - discontinued
Rucksack (0.8863) - changed locking mechanism and became a Forester(0.8363)
Forester (0.8361.MC, 0.8361.63) - new models.


Something like this? If yes - let's imagine next situation:
 I'm a newbie and I'd like to find something about new Picknicker and new Forester models on SAKWiki..
If we're going just to update pages of existing models - there are no dedicated pages for these models and needed information will be presented in old pages only (Nomad and Rucksack accordingly).


In other words - in order to read about Picknicker I need to know that it's a former Nomad, otherwise - I'll not find anything.


Maybe we can add some links with redirection to the pages with TOC?

• Forester
• Forester 2017 -> Rucksack
• Picknicker
• Picknicker 2017 -> Nomad

What do you think?
P.S. Sorry for my English

[pfrsantos]

For the models that converted to liner lock
- To keep things more concise, neater and to avoid duplication I would much prefer to add a note the History section of the affected knives stating that in 2017 this model was converted from a side lock to a liner locking blade.
 
Seems much simpler to me

I think this change is like a tool version change or a Champion gaining another layer, or the hook being added to models with scissors.

Let's see what we can do on simple example:


Picknicker (0.8853) - changed locking mechanism and became a Picknicker (0.8353)
Nomad (0.8353.3) - no changes. Renamed to Picknicker
Nomad (0.8351.C, 0.8353.MW3, 0.8351.MWC) - discontinued.


Forester (0.8363.3, 0.8361.MWC, 0.8361.C) - discontinued
Rucksack (0.8863) - changed locking mechanism and became a Forester(0.8363)
Forester (0.8361.MC, 0.8361.63) - new models.


Something like this? If yes - let's imagine next situation:
 I'm a newbie and I'd like to find something about new Picknicker and new Forester models on SAKWiki..
If we're going just to update pages of existing models - there are no dedicated pages for these models and needed information will be presented in old pages only (Nomad and Rucksack accordingly).


In other words - in order to read about Picknicker I need to know that it's a former Nomad, otherwise - I'll not find anything.


Maybe we can add some links with redirection to the pages with TOC?

• Forester
• Forester 2017 -> Rucksack
• Picknicker
• Picknicker 2017 -> Nomad

What do you think?
P.S. Sorry for my English

I was thinking/suggesting something along these lines:

Picknicker (0.8853)[/color] - In production since 2017 (replaced 0.8353.3 Picknicker)
Picknicker (0.8353.3) - In production from xxxx until 2017 (replaced 0.8351.C, 0.8353.MW3, 0.8351.MWC Nomad) - discontinued, see Picknicker (0.8853)
Nomad (0.8351.C, 0.8353.MW3, 0.8351.MWC) - In production from xxxx until xxxx - discontinued, see Picknicker (0.8353.3)

In case of updated models, the most recent one refers the previous model. All discontinued models refer to the "replacement" model. If there is no update, they just say discontinued and don't point to another model.

Comments, ideas, suggestions?...

 



As for your english, it's way better than my Ukrainian / Russian!
 


Edit: colour coded for ease of reading.

[Huntsman]

OK – Yes its complicated – And why do Victorinox keep re-using/changing names!!
And maybe I did not explain myself clearly in the last post 

I would establish some principles to guide what we do and in priority sequence these would be:

• Ease of use and accessibility of information for a (potentially new/unfamiliar) user
  
• Base a page on the current name of the knife – And always have the current situation/name foremost - As this is what most users will understand  – Not necessarily toolset/tool variations ..... However we would have notes on that in the detail
  
• Minimise the number of pages in the Wiki – So do not create new pages for existing names – Especially as toolsets are usually equivalent
  
• We do not discard information that is already in the Wiki – eg We have pages for Nomad and Picknicker – We need to keep that info – All be it updated.
  

----------------------------------------------- EDIT: PS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if we put the information the other way around - as you say LeaFy - That might be better and follow my principles better too !!
ie Instead of saying:
This model originally had a side locking main blade, which was converted to a liner lock in 2017
We say:
This model has a liner locking main blade - Prior to 2017 it had a side locking main blade
----------------------------------------------- End PS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in your examples above LeaFy - We would do the following:

Picnicker/Nomad

We would update the Nomad page with this information:

Intro Paragraph: Withdrawn model
History Section: This model name has been withdrawn however this toolset with liner locking blade and screwdriver from 2017 is known as the Picnicker 

We would update the Picnicker pages with this information:

Intro Paragraph: This model originally had a side locking main blade, which was converted to a liner lock in 2017
Comment at bottom of Tools Section: Blade was originally side/slide locking, blade and cap lifter/screwdriver currently liner locking. 
History Section: In 2017 Victorinox withdrew all their slide locking 111mm Swiss Army Knives and converted many of them, including the Picnicker, to have a liner locking main blade and screwdriver.. The 2017 Picnicker is equivalent to the previous Nomad liner locking model.
Identifiers Section: Updated with appropriate model numbers and comments (eg liner locking version)


And as you say we could add pictures of the new Picknicker.


Rucksack/Forester

We would update the Rucksack page with this information:

Intro Paragraph: Withdrawn model
History Section: In 2017 Victorinox withdrew all their slide locking 111mm Swiss Army Knives including the Rucksack. However this toolset was and is still available in the liner locking Forester model.

Forester pages:
I don’t think that there would be a need to change anything in the Forrester pages apart from update any new models –
I guess we could put this comment in History
History Section: In 2017 Victorinox withdrew all their slide locking 111mm Swiss Army Knives and converted many of them to have a liner locking main blade. The Forester and Rucksack had equivalent toolsets, with different locking mechanisms, now only the Forester is available.
Identifiers Section: Updated with appropriate model numbers and comments (eg the Wooden Forester etc)


For Models that did a straight conversion eg Workchamp - We would do the following

Intro Paragraph: This model originally had a side locking main blade, which was converted to a liner lock in 2017
Comment at bottom of Tools Section: Blade was originally side/slide locking, blade and cap lifter/screwdriver currently liner locking. 
History Section: In 2017 Victorinox withdrew all their slide locking 111mm Swiss Army Knives and converted many of them including this model to have a liner locking main blade and screwdriver.


All withdrawn models – Marked as ‘Withdrawn in 2017’ in the intro paragraph 


I know internally the liner lock versions are different ie pin sizes tool widths etc – However I think creating new pages for all these is just too much and will be too confusing. Although we should probably add some commentary to the 111mm side/liner lock comparison pages on this

I would not be adding any new models/pointers to the 111mm lists eg Forester 2017 / Picnicker 2017 etc – Again I think this will be too confusing.

Although to the 111mm layer tables we would need to convert the entry in Column 2 for the Picnicker and any other models that got converted from S to S/L


Phew – How does that sound

[Huntsman]

I just want to take a moment to give a big thank you for all the work that has gone into--and continues to go into--the SAKWiki.
We're fortunate to have such a marvelous resource. I'm sure it will always be a "work in progress," but what a wonderful piece of work it is.

Hear, hear! 

Good to hear - Thanks guys

There was a power of work that went into setting up the wiki in the early days by the likes of Stressmaster, ICanFixThat, Enki,  even the boss - and many others
The design and structure is fantastic and the sheer quantity of great content and photos is incredible.
These days it's more of a maintenance task - I am trying to make all the information a little more user friendly, and Mr LeaF is always adding great photos
Although every now and again there's a chunk of work to do eg ^^^

[Guardian]

Thank you all for keeping SAKWiki up and running 

[pfrsantos]

I just want to take a moment to give a big thank you for all the work that has gone into--and continues to go into--the SAKWiki.
We're fortunate to have such a marvelous resource. I'm sure it will always be a "work in progress," but what a wonderful piece of work it is.

Hear, hear! 

Good to hear - Thanks guys

There was a power of work that went into setting up the wiki in the early days by the likes of Stressmaster, ICanFixThat, Enki,  even the boss - and many others
The design and structure is fantastic and the sheer quantity of great content and photos is incredible.
These days it's more of a maintenance task - I am trying to make all the information a little more user friendly, and Mr LeaF is always adding great photos
Although every now and again there's a chunk of work to do eg ^^^

@Huntsman:
Great work. The ammount of info on this is huge and you're making a great job updating and correcting it.

For the people using the Wiki, I think the most important is to see the current/available models. If there's a number of previous versions, it could be mentioned in those models' pages and people can then look them up, if they want.

I agree with you. Keep the existing pages/info. If a model's name stays the same, just update the page. Refer the changes in the history section of the page. Maybe the discontinued reference should be indicated in the start of the page (in the title, following the model's name or in the first words of the description).

I'll try to see if I have any items that I can take some pictures of to complement some pages.

Shall I send you the pics or post them here and you then decide when/if you insert them in the Wiki?

 

[LeaF]

Regarding changes related to the 111-mm series (2017 year) - I have to take some time-out
Too much information, thoughts and ideas..


Right now I'm working on 84-mm TOC pages - adding some links, creating empty pages for missing models an so on. 




UPDATE: Did some changes in 84-mm TOC pages; added Lumberjack Big to the list of 91-mm models; added some photos to the Climber, Golfer Special and AutoTools pages.
Mr. Huntsman, need your verification, specially Autools page

[Whoey]

So we are using what is essentially a Swiss army knife of wiki software that has many features we aren't using, also it has been updated a number of times and I suspect there's a number of things that aren't functioning correctly as perhaps they were obsoleted or broken during upgrades or perhaps maybe mis-configured and lost in the oblivion of the cyberspace highway.

Huntsman brought up that the page hit counters seem to be broken. I suspected that it's something that happened when we upgraded to 15.x quite some time ago, but can't seem to find anything offering a fix (but another person did report the same problem).

One option is to upgrade to the next/current version of TIKIWIKI, but given that at least 90% of these extra features are disabled and we don't need them anyways, perhaps an alternative more basic solution might be worthwhile looking into. This would give us the opportunity to clean up a lot of garbage and even perhaps restructure the wiki making it easier to browse for all.

I may have mentioned in the past I have no experience in the wiki software usage, its original installation predates my involvement in the MTO empire, all I have done is mostly update the software, adjust some themes and logos. I also may have mentioned my lack of love for the tikiwiki software, personally I find it messy and complicated to do simple things.

My question to you sakwiki editors, would you be interested in migrating to a new setup? Many hands would make for quick work. Ideally we'd have both a new and old wiki online at the same time until we are happy that the new contains all the old info (and more) and then retire it/swap out.

[pfrsantos]

If for page hit counters you mean a counter to show how many people have visited a certain page before you, it's almost completely abandoned. Not very important to know if the page I want had 20 or 20.000 visitors before me, I just want its contents.

[m47mu74nt]

Moving to another wiki might be a good idea -maybe mediawiki? Or a markdown based one?-
But that would need to rewrite every single article, (reupload files too? At least re-link to them) with new syntax, new way of working.

Starting from scratch has a lot of advantages, but keep in mind that it will need an enormous amount of work and we will loose the edit history -that I use sometimes to track some info that might have been modified/lost at some point-.
And we already lost some SOSAK links/content with broken links, moving on a new base will make loose some more obviously...

If you decide to go for a new wiki, I'll try to give a hand at rewriting a few articles, but this will take long long time :-)

[Ron Who]

One thing that I'd like to discuss - how we're going to reflect in SAKWiki this year's changes (I mean 2017) regarding 111-mm series?


Few ideas:
1. All slide-lock models which weren't replaced with the newest liner-lock models (Cowboy, Atlas) should be marked as 'Discontinued'
2. Models, which had changing locking mechanism from slide-lock to liner-lock (Outrider for example) should be added to the appropriate lists as separate models (Outrider 2 or Outrider 2017).
3. Models, which were relisted with new names (Nomad -> Picknicker,  Sentinel with corkscrew -> Alpineer) should be marked with the link to the new model.


What do you think about this?


P.S. Few months before I've created an Excel worksheet with changes in 111-mm series. Maybe it will be interested for someone.

There is an Alpineer already.(111mm slide-lock).

[El Corkscrew]

One thing that I'd like to discuss - how we're going to reflect in SAKWiki this year's changes (I mean 2017) regarding 111-mm series?


Few ideas:
1. All slide-lock models which weren't replaced with the newest liner-lock models (Cowboy, Atlas) should be marked as 'Discontinued'
2. Models, which had changing locking mechanism from slide-lock to liner-lock (Outrider for example) should be added to the appropriate lists as separate models (Outrider 2 or Outrider 2017).
3. Models, which were relisted with new names (Nomad -> Picknicker,  Sentinel with corkscrew -> Alpineer) should be marked with the link to the new model.


What do you think about this?


P.S. Few months before I've created an Excel worksheet with changes in 111-mm series. Maybe it will be interested for someone.

There is an Alpineer already.(111mm slide-lock).

The Passenger was also called the Alpineer....  and had the "Alpineer" inlay

[El Corkscrew]

 

[Huntsman]

Well folks time for my annual report on Wiki updates.
I have been beavering away over the last year and done a lot of work – So here’s a summary......   
Please let me know any comments or feedback on this - Thanks

The main goals of the work were to:

• Make the Wiki more user friendly/usable for all the time poor, ‘short attention span’ internet users 
  
• Update the pages with current info eg Withdrawn models etc
  
• Make corrections, fix broken links etc
  
• Physically condense the page sizes, and make everything more compact (eg remove duplications, move piccies into white space etc), never losing any info of course!!
  
• Re-organise first, history and variation sections – As these were sometimes a bit mixed up
  
• Oh and sometimes I have even enhanced/added information!!
  

The following pages have had major redesigns/complete reworks:
Tool List;  Wenger 130mm Tool Comparison; 111mm layer pages; 74mm Main page; Autotool; Wenger Series Menu; Swiss Card; 1890/1961 Soldier - History sections; 58mm layer pages; Jetsetters

The most significant being the first two in the list. These pages were a great concept, but, IMHO, poorly implemented, almost to the point of being unusable (eg the Tool List page was originally 18 screenfulls long – It is now 8 - yet with more information !)

The following pages have had significant updates:
Several series pages - eg Battles; XAVT; Minichamp; All 58mm USB SAKs; Classic; Signatures;  Vic 91mm main page; All timer/altimeter models; Original Officer's Knife

Also of note:
Pioneer; Some Swiss Bucks; Mountain SAKs - McKinley etc; Bernina; Tools titles; 58mm Golf SAKs; All the other 91mm XLxx models ……

And several other pages with minor updates   

If anyone wants to know specifically what was done for any page – Just ask, or check the history button – I try to always complete this

And finally, the new pages:
Tomo (previously was a variant of the Classic); Delémonts .... Here is a link

For the Delémonts - I have taken a slightly different approach to previous Wiki pages - So would welcome your feedback:

• As there are only a few models - I have not filled in the layer pages – Just used the main size page
  
• On the main size page I have put sections by layer for the 65s and 130s
  
• On the main size page I have added a brief overview of the model
  
• I have merged models/pages together if only the blade type or backtool is different. This makes a lot of sense to me and fits in with my goals above! So for instance the Ranger 55 and 56 share a page - as the only difference is corkscrew vs Phillips – Seems fine .....  right?    ...... However when you put this in Vic 91mm terms – It means the Tinker and Spartan would share the same page – Which sounds horrendous!  What do you think? – Have a look at the pages! 
  

BTW – I did not finish the 85mm Delés – If anyone wants to finish them off – Please go ahead.
I would advise copying one of the existing Delés – as opposed to using the template or the Wenger version.

I hope what I am doing is all OK  -   
I think it’s all a great improvement – Just a bit worried that I am re-working some of the good and significant work done by the earlier Wiki editors.

I’ll maybe put a post here later with the ‘still to-dos’ – There is still quite a lot !!

And as always post here - If you spot errors, gaps etc

[Whoey]

awesome, there's always room for improvement, and looks like you found a bunch of ways to do so.

[ThePeacent]

such a good, long and time consuming work that you've done for us, and the world
I thank you for that!   

[Don Pablo]

 
Sounds like a smurf ton of work.

[jaya_man]

Just spotted some contradictory info relating to the OH GAK...


For the 58mm page, how are layers counted? Is it based on liners or backsprings?... The short list for 2 layer 58mm includes Rambler/Manager, etc. apart from the Classic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huntsman]

Hi JM - Thanks for the feedback

Just spotted some contradictory info relating to the OH GAK...

Sorry if I am being thick - Can you be more explicit on the contradiction please   

For the 58mm page, how are layers counted? Is it based on liners or backsprings?
... The short list for 2 layer 58mm includes Rambler/Manager, etc. apart from the Classic...

Please see notes here:
http://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Victorinox+58mm+2+Layer+Models   - Bottom of page

These are referred to at the top of every layer page

Is this OK ?   Not clear?   Need to go somewhere else?   

[El Corkscrew]

Why ya gotta poke Eeyore, J-Man?        I'd discovered the layer thing...   The more I think about the wiki the more I realize how much work it is and awlso that it kinda depends on point of view as far as including information and saying what other knives are "related" to others...

I do usually eventually find the answer I'm looking for on there, just might not be the first place I look.... and that's OK.   

 

[jaya_man]

Hi JM - Thanks for the feedback

Just spotted some contradictory info relating to the OH GAK...

Sorry if I am being thick - Can you be more explicit on the contradiction please   

For the 58mm page, how are layers counted? Is it based on liners or backsprings?
... The short list for 2 layer 58mm includes Rambler/Manager, etc. apart from the Classic...

Please see notes here:
http://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Victorinox+58mm+2+Layer+Models   - Bottom of page

These are referred to at the top of every layer page

Is this OK ?   Not clear?   Need to go somewhere else?   

In the description box at the top, the trecker is referred as the civilian version of the original OH GAK...

Under variations no.2, OH GAK is described as the civilian version of the original OH GAK... maybe contradictory is not the right word, but rather confusing... any physical differences between OH GAK and OH GAK?

On the layers page, i didn’t notice it was there... thanks for pointing...

Hmmm, the Original Vagabond is 4 layers, where as the SwissBianco Vagabond would be 3 layers... right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jaya_man]

Why ya gotta poke Eeyore, J-Man?        I'd discovered the layer thing...   The more I think about the wiki the more I realize how much work it is and awlso that it kinda depends on point of view as far as including information and saying what other knives are "related" to others...

I do usually eventually find the answer I'm looking for on there, just might not be the first place I look.... and that's OK.   

 

:lol:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huntsman]

In the description box at the top, the trecker is referred as the civilian version of the original OH GAK...
Under variations no.2, OH GAK is described as the civilian version of the original OH GAK... maybe contradictory is not the right word, but rather confusing... any physical differences between OH GAK and OH GAK?

On the layers page, i didn’t notice it was there... thanks for pointing...
Hmmm, the Original Vagabond is 4 layers, where as the SwissBianco Vagabond would be 3 layers... right?

Re: Trekker - Got it !! .... Better ??

Re: Vagabond - Just read the page - Yep it seems so - And the text mentions the different tool layout!!
..... Which, according to the Wiki layer definitions, suddenly makes it a three, not a four layer knife -      ... Confusing !

It would be more consistent if we counted springs !!
But then you might get people asking, 'How come the Rambler has three layers? - I can only see two'   

As El CS says it's often down to interpretation / opinion !! 
What do people think      Layers or springs      Or don't mind/care/think it is important.
It's only enthusiasts like us who think about this !

[jaya_man]

I go with the majority... am just accustomed to how we count layers for the other vic sizes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huntsman]

Hmmmm OK

And how would that apply to the 58s - with their two - full, front and back layers of tools 
... And tools that have either one or two springs   
Just about all the others have a 1:1 relationship from spring to tool to layer


Re Trekker - Is it .... better?  now

[pfrsantos]

such a good, long and time consuming work that you've done for us, and the world
I thank you for that!   

This!

Also, if you're taking the time to fix everything and come up with a better layout, I'd say whatever you do is fine.

 

Don't take suggestions from who knows more, just from who has done better.

[Whoey]

As part of a larger maintenance scope, I'll likely be upgrading the wikis soon to the new LTS release.