Been doing some work in the Wiki

[Mechanickal]

It's a unique toolset.
Giving it a "Craftsman" name would make things even more complicated thant they already are. No?

[kamakiri]

It's a unique toolset.
Giving it a "Craftsman" name would make things even more complicated thant they already are. No?

No. Revisionist history is more complicated.


Seriously, show me ONE catalog cut from ANY market that shows a 136ka with an ARTISAN label.

[Mechanickal]

I'm not trying to point out to catalog names.

Victorinox has made a mess of names and model numbers in the past.
Some knives didn't even get a name or got a recycled one.

If we have to follow Victorinox' way of naming, we'd have to remove all pages, use model numbers exclusively and add the names under those model numbers that Victorinox once used for them.

I'm not questioning you being right here, because I know you are.
But it's not a matter of being right but rather of keeping the information accessible and understandable.

If that means a certain knife gets a name that might not have been used in a catalog, so be it
Same thing for the Alumnus by the way.

So I understand your reasoning and I agree with what you are saying, but I also hope you understand that the Wiki needs to be clear and accessible to everyone

[kamakiri]

Nick- go look at the edit history. I’m not talking about the page name. I’ve already agreed it has to stay.

[Mechanickal]

Will do! I must have misunderstood somewhere then...

[Huntsman]

Was just looking at the ‘Artisan’ page 
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about the Craftsman naming. There’s PROOF that it was. And only very thin hints that it was ever named Artisan.
Please explain the issue. 
And the ‘in certain markets’ aside comments 

Hi KK,

Thanks for you input and comments

I don’t understand what you mean by “all the fuss is about” - What fuss? - And for me, there are no issues (to explain), although I think you seem to have some issues with the page!

However, I can explain the updates I made – I’ll just concentrate on the updates relating to name, as these seem to be the ones to which you are objecting.

• I created a Name Disambiguation section in line with other Wiki pages (I assume you are OK with that) and put some text that was already in the page into that section - with some minor alterations.
• I took out the "for decades" comment as, whilst two decades is plural, the expression ‘for decades’ gives the impression of many, many decades, plus the expression "was originally named " covers all time from initial availability to the name change
• I put the "(in some markets?)" statement after “This model was originally named the Craftsman” because the only catalogue pages I have seen (which are the ones in the Wiki) that call this model a Craftsman are all from US catalogues (- or should I say catalogs!). So, I believe that the comment in brackets and with a question mark, nicely indicates this fact, and possible uncertainty/geography.

As I think you know artisan is French for craftsman. So, for instance, are you sure that this model was called the Craftsman in France (a country notorious for resisting English words)? or even Switzerland? which is 25% French speaking, the rest being predominantly German speaking, or even the UK? 

We know that Vic names were not standardised (to English), and across the globe, until the mid-70s – And that the Craftsman name was used for the 91mm model from that time. And, for sure, we did not have the global economy, or even such pervasiveness of English, at that time, or prior to that.

We also know that the 4-layer 84mm model was called the Artisan in some markets. This is from catalogues and knife boxes, the Wiki page mentions this and there are some threads in MT.o about it too.

All this is nicely explained in the Artisan page - top and History sections, and some of it is also mentioned in the Craftsman page.

So, I think the page looks good and explains what we know for sure quite well.
And the phrase to which you are objecting - if I understand you correctly - is in brackets and with a question mark - So hardly explicit or directive.

I hope that makes sense and addresses your concerns and issues.

If you or anyone else knows any more or different than this, or has suggestions to improve the page - Please chip in   

What might be nice - Is to include your pic of all the Craftsmen from the Craftsman Love thread - in the Craftsmen pages - Can I do that?

[kamakiri]

That’s a ‘No’ for use on the old posted pictures. I was getting back to this page to see what I would include and re-shoot.

We also know that the 4-layer 84mm model was called the Artisan in some markets. This is from catalogues and knife boxes, the Wiki page mentions this and there are some threads in MT.o about it too.

Actually I’ve seen ZERO proof on this note. AFAIK, the Artisan labels were only used on the 6 layer models and for BOTH Craftsman and Handyman models. And the comment about the ‘76 US Dealer catalog is wrong, if you take the time to look for yourself.

From what I can tell, boxes left Ibach with the English stamped versions. Some with both the English name and number code. Sure, they were likely for the US market, but not sure what the Smurf your point is with the ‘in certain markets’ comment.

[kamakiri]

I don’t understand what you mean by “all the fuss is about” - What fuss? - And for me, there are no issues (to explain), although I think you seem to have some issues with the page!

Yes, as I’ve said before, I DO think the page still needs fixing.

By ‘fuss’, I mean I don’t really understand why you’ve felt the need to edit what I put in there. Despite your explanations above, those comments are just your opinions on the matter and everything I posted is based on fact.

[enki_ck]

When the foul language filter has to step in, then you're using the wrong kind of arguments

Boys, I think it would be best to take this discussuon to PMs where you can agree or agree to disagree.

As for the wiki ... when ICFT and I were doing most of the work, we also had differences of opinions like you guys have. So we decided to split the work. He got Vic, I got Wenger. That's why you see me mostly in those pages. Find a way to split work so you don't step on each others toes

[kamakiri]

  I manually typed ‘smurf’. Is that not allowed?

I think that’s not a bad suggestion about the split. Calling dibs on everything that’s a 136x variant. 

[Mechanickal]

Can't really add anything more useful than what Enki just said.

I've seen my own written texts being altered to something I didn't think of.
In the first instance, it feels... A bit shocking. After reading it through though, I could only admit it turned out better.

Different opinions and personalities tend to crash sometimes, but that doesn't mean an entire battle has to be started over it.


So take a deep breath, take a step back and look at this from a distance...

Is this really worth the tension and harsh discussion??
It's SAKwiki ... Made by people way more knowledgeable than me. I don't know alot about the history of SAKs, and the things I do know have been picked up from there.

But let's make one thing clear:
What a single individual has or has not seen does not make it a fact or a lie.
Please, just listen to each other and try to LEARN from each other instead of trying to figure out who is right. Maybe you both are, maybe none of you are.

But that's for you guys to figure out


Keep the family together guys!

[kamakiri]

 

Just found this on the Master Craftsman Small page.

[kamakiri]

I've seen my own written texts being altered to something I didn't think of.
In the first instance, it feels... A bit shocking. After reading it through though, I could only admit it turned out better.

So you won’t mind when I go over the Phillips comments?

There’s actually a lot to expand on just for that tool alone. It’s changed a lot more than previously described. Machined angle of the file face, cut of the file itself, and the rest of the running changes from forged to surface polish.

There are lots of changes to make, and I’d post them here when it’s done.

Different opinions and personalities tend to crash sometimes, but that doesn't mean an entire battle has to be started over it.


So take a deep breath, take a step back and look at this from a distance...

Is this really worth the tension and harsh discussion??
It's SAKwiki ... Made by people way more knowledgeable than me. I don't know alot about the history of SAKs, and the things I do know have been picked up from there.

But let's make one thing clear:
What a single individual has or has not seen does not make it a fact or a lie.
Please, just listen to each other and try to LEARN from each other instead of trying to figure out who is right. Maybe you both are, maybe none of you are.

But that's for you guys to figure out


Keep the family together guys!

I hardly understand when somebody says “I have nothing to add”...then proceed to add a lot.   

[Mechanickal]

Lol. I thought that too after I posted that

[pfrsantos]

 

[Huntsman]

Just found this on the Master Craftsman Small page.   

Hi Folks
Seeing as our good friend PFR's life is on hold due to a mistake in the Internet, and this latest and new criticism from KK has been made in the public forum, I will respond here, to set the record straight.
Other comments I may respond to via PM as kindly and sensibly suggested by enki.

So the most important thing is fellow Knights:
– Worry not - The Internet is correct. Well at least SAKWiki is !        

If you look at the Wiki page update related to this History comment - It says this:

• 0.4xx3 - Modern number (0 for 84mm, 4 for Phillips, 3 for t&t, xx unknown!)

The data in italics follows the Victorinox post-mid-70s numbering convention. So we know the product code will be exactly in this format and will have these values.

Previously this entry said x.xxxx – which is not helpful to Wiki users.

So this update is an accurate enhancement to the Wiki, and will even help Wiki users learn about Vic model numbering conventions.
So it was an educated and well-informed ‘guess’ ….. and in fact, not a guess at all !   

The info I put in the Wiki is all formal and factual (and often involves external research/verification), - or makes the Wiki more user friendly / standardises formatting.

The comments I put in the History are informal, and sometimes I make them light-hearted, or even funny, for instance in this case, hopefully to put a smile on fellow editors or Wiki users’ faces. 
I never, for one minute, imagined these comments would be used as ammunition against me!   

[SirVicaLot]

He guys, I was trying to register for the SAK wiki, but when I try to request a passcode, I get an error message: No route found.

Am I doing something wrong? 

[zoidberg]

He guys, I was trying to register for the SAK wiki, but when I try to request a passcode, I get an error message: No route found.

Am I doing something wrong? 

I'll flick you a PM like asap...

[SirVicaLot]

Worked! Thanks 

[kamakiri]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

All anyone needs is to read the discussion on this between on pages 11-12 of this thread, especially the jazzbass post I quoted.

I did get an interesting PM. I can only agree to disagree.

And no, no more of my pictures are to be added to the Wiki at this time. That was an unusual request to make at this point.

[Ivo]

I added some more info in the HISTORY section on the RICHARTZ page (https://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Richartz) 

[Ivo]

The Richartz page will change the next couple of days, adding "Solingen Regulations" and different knives and multitools both from Richartz and Ricardo.

[enki_ck]

Dear members, admins and editors of the sakwiki.

We have a problem. We've been having it for a while now and with every new update something else breaks, wiki crashes, sometimes taking the whole forum down as it did about an hour ago. The problem is with the tikiwiki software. We have been talking on and off for years about transfering the wiki to one of the other wiki software options like the one wikipedia uses, but the pain of the move has halted us so far.

Regretfully, we'll have to bite the bullet and do the move. We'll need a lot of editors and working hours to do the  code clean up, link fixing, image reuploading, ... So expect an call to arms at a point in the not so distant future...

For now, I ask you not to do any more edits to the wiki, uploads or anything as the wiki database is very unstable and will just give us extra work once we do a move.

We'll probably lock the wiki in the state it is now to keep it as a reference point for all the users, make a parallel wiki and do a transfer there, clean up, fix up, and once it's representable and functional open up the new version to the public.

It will be a HUGE job, but with a few good men and women, I'm sure we can do it and have a nicer, cleaner, faster and most importantly, a stable wiki and forum.

[zoidberg]

Brutal...

[m47mu74nt]

 

[Mechanickal]

Oh my...

[Reinier]

I don't have a lot of free time, but if my help is needed then I will do my best to assist where possible.

Sounds like a huge job indeed

[enki_ck]

We first have to do some patch work to keep it in working condition for the time being and do the prep work with installing the new software, doing the move, reuploading everything, ...

Once we have the base work done, we'll make a tutorial for editors to do the code clean up, links checking and fixing, pics, everything.

Yup, it might take months till we can call it done. I know the last time we had to do the manual fixes of the TOC and some other code when I last recruited editors and how long that took. And this will be a much bigger project but it needs to be done.

It's not something we did, that we broke, it's been piling up with every update, and it now came to a point where it's time to say goodbye to the tikiwiki.

[Whoey]

I don't think we need to stop edits just yet, I need to line a lot of ducks up first... when the time comes, I will let you know.

It would however, be very helpful if the edits were planned/prepared before actually doing them on the wiki.

One of the big issues is the massive change logs which takes up 2/3 of the whole Sakwiki DB.

[comis]

We first have to do some patch work to keep it in working condition for the time being and do the prep work with installing the new software, doing the move, reuploading everything, ...

Once we have the base work done, we'll make a tutorial for editors to do the code clean up, links checking and fixing, pics, everything.

Yup, it might take months till we can call it done. I know the last time we had to do the manual fixes of the TOC and some other code when I last recruited editors and how long that took. And this will be a much bigger project but it needs to be done.

It's not something we did, that we broke, it's been piling up with every update, and it now came to a point where it's time to say goodbye to the tikiwiki.

Enki, though my coding knowledge is very limited, but given I could understand the new code instruction, I definitely would love to lend my hands to help with the move.  Meanwhile, I have planned a few new uploads, but I will wait a little before doing more upload to confuse things further.