Been doing some work in the Wiki

[Little Tinker]

I agree the last iteration was a bit mangled, but I've a revised order that I've found easier to use which is:
- Spartan tools plus speSmurfpillst blades ordered layer, back, scales;
- Followed by remaining tools ordered same way.

Would that work for you?

[Huntsman]

I still think grouping all the layer, then back, then scales, tools together works best - Something like:

LB, SmB, PruB, SerB, Tec SD, BO, CO, Comb, Sc, WoodS, MetalS, Fish, Pliers, Cyber, Flash, Mag, ElecB, Spatch, Divot, , Lighter        Phil,       CorkS, Aw, Hook, Fine, Ch, Mini       Tp, Tw, Pin, Pen, Alti,    KR

Maybe we need to make two Phillips (back + in line) for ease of making the table

In my own personal excel db (which is a rework of Detrons spready)  I have something like this order:
LB, SmB, , BO, CO, , Sc, WoodS, MetalS, Fish, Mag, Phil (inline),  Pliers,Flash , PruB, SerB, , ElecB,  Comb, Divot, Tec SD,  Cyber,Spatch, , Pharm, Lighter            Aw,  CorkS, Phil,  Hook, Fine, Ch, Mini       Tp, Tw, Pin, Pen, Alti,    KR
So Layer - Back - Scales
In the layer section: The Swiss Champ tools set first -then the other blades, then the other half tools, then the more obsure ones  I find it works pretty well

Who would have thought this would be so Hard!! 

Anyone else any thoughts?

[sLaughterMed]

I just took a peek at the SAKWiki, it looks fantastic guys! Keep up the good work

[Huntsman]

Couple of other wee comments.

In the second sequence suggestion above - For the layer section (and actually also the back and scales sections too)
The sequence is actually:
Spartan Tools - Swiss Champ tools  -then the other blades - then the other half tools - then the more obsure ones

If you build it this way you get more of the the 'tool present' markers in the table grouped together towards the left of the table section, In other words as you move from left to right - you move from more common to less common
 - Ie Nearly all (EDIT: tools ) SAKS have the Spartan toolset, most have the scissors, many have one or more of the Swisschamp tool set, few have the obscure blades/tools typically just the XLT, XAVT etc
- This I feel makes it easier to use
Does that make sense? Or at least have I explained it clearly
Actually why am I trying to explain it  - Pictures speak louder than words - I attach a picture of an extract from my spready below
The shaded vertical lines are the Spartan tool set !!

Anyway I'll shut up now     

[Little Tinker]

I've put a new order in the tables.  Still slightly different to what you propose, but closer.  I wasn't ignoring you though - just didn't have time to try it out before rebuilding.

I've also added a master tool-to-knife page for Victorinix, and added the relevant list to Altimeter and Chisel tool pages.

As ever, things to sort out remain but comments invited.

[Little Tinker]

Would it be at all useful to put this in the Wiki somewhere, which shows how you can move from Spartan to SwissChamp adding one tool layer at a time amongst the knives in the Victorinox  2015 catalogue? Or maybe an expanded version showing discontinued knives as well (which could get messy!)?

[m47mu74nt]

I noticed I had some different model of scissors and stamping on my few 74mm:

• pre-1975 Windsor (pre 1980 stamping, pre-1975 scissors)
• 1975-1980 Windsor (pre-1980 stamping and post-1975 new grind and V spring)
• 1990 Moneyclip (scissors with screw, so pre-1991, but with grooved handle and V-spring with cam so post 1990)
• 2005-2007 Moneyclip (post 2005 stamping, 1991-2007 scissors: steel pivot)
• 1990 Ambassador (1975-1990 scissors, 1980-1990 stampings)

So here is the table to help dating other 74mm
Not sure how to put this into SAKwiki, i can upload the full-res picture to the gallery, but the table should be remastered

[m47mu74nt]

Would it be at all useful to put this in the Wiki somewhere, which shows how you can move from Spartan to SwissChamp adding one tool layer at a time amongst the knives in the Victorinox  2015 catalogue? Or maybe an expanded version showing discontinued knives as well (which could get messy!)?

[Huntsman]

Hi LT

Great work - That new sequence is much, much better - Brilliant - Thank you

OK Feedback time - Apologies in advance - Some of this is really anal!!

• My preference is still the sequence I discuss above (all L,B,S together and within that Spartan, Champ, others)  - But that's just me. If you do leave it as it is now - One change I would make is to swap the position of the CS and Phillips - So that all the L's and B's are together in that section
  
• The hyperlinks to Champions and Cybertools don't work - That probably was me - Sorry 
  
• The hyperlinks to mainblade and awl and small blade don't work
  
• The list of 'common to all' tools would be better with commas - This is really OCD  !!!
  
• For the six + layer table I don't think you need the extra text saying how many layers is in the SAK - It's in the table above - So unneccessarily doubles the depth of the table
  
• The tool to model reference is brilliant - I always wanted one of those - I would be tempted not to bother with those tables for the Spartan toolset  - As the tables are so big (eg check out the keyring!!) and pretty much all SAKS have the Spartan tool set, but the rest are really, really useful 
  
• The Cyberbits related SAKs table - Should probably be the Cybertool not the bits
  
• Love the family tree too - Really nice - Really useful - That could go somewhere on the tools main page, or better still the page of 91mm (and 84mm) SAKs that does not have the layers ?? Someone else here did one of those with all the models, and as you say it was pretty complex - So I think your curent model one works best - And you can always cross reference a current model to an older model if you will
  
• M47 - Re the scissor dating tables - I was planning to upload my tool dating spreadsheet into a new section in the tools main page - So it would fit nicely there - I will make a separate post about that!!
  

I think that's it

Thanks again LT for the awesome work - And please don't take all my anal comments personally !!     

[JamesJ]

First of all, I just wanna thank all contributers to the wiki, I'm on there reading all the time. Great job already even with the to-do list of things being discussed.

If nobody has mentioned, I didn't see anything about the 2 different mini screwdriver shapes on the page for that tool. (Old rounded and newer hex)

Do paypal donations to multitool.org help sakwiki as well?

[Little Tinker]

Thanks for all the support and feedback.  It helps me find the time and energy to keep tinkering  .  It's all very constructive and welcome  .

My preference is still the sequence I discuss above (all L,B,S together and within that Spartan, Champ, others)  - But that's just me. If you do leave it as it is now - One change I would make is to swap the position of the CS and Phillips - So that all the L's and B's are together in that section

I'm not averse to that, just prioritising other stuff  .  I'll revise it again and we can gather views afterwards.

The hyperlinks to Champions and Cybertools don't work - That probably was me - Sorry 

No, probably me.  The multi-knife pages expose a few quirks in the way I built the data.  I'm planning to address it  .

The hyperlinks to mainblade and awl and small blade don't work

Well spotted.  That's me tangling up simple names and page names  .

The list of 'common to all' tools would be better with commas - This is really OCD  !!!

Good idea.  I also don't like the simple string of names  .

For the six + layer table I don't think you need the extra text saying how many layers is in the SAK - It's in the table above - So unneccessarily doubles the depth of the table

I'm in two minds about having it.  It's got the wrong numbers at the moment anyway, so I'll simply remove for now  .  Shall we keep the upper table, and start filling in more of the info (but remove the Philips / Corkscrew columns  ?

The tool to model reference is brilliant - I always wanted one of those - I would be tempted not to bother with those tables for the Spartan toolset  - As the tables are so big (eg check out the keyring!!) and pretty much all SAKS have the Spartan tool set, but the rest are really, really useful 

They all get generated automatically at the mo.  I wasn't planning to put ones that are unhelpfully large onto the tool page, for the reasons that you suggest.  I'll take a look at filtering them out of the master table as well, or moving them to the end as a "well, if you really want to know" section  .

The Cyberbits related SAKs table - Should probably be the Cybertool not the bits

Another artefact of the way the data was parsed form the current Wiki knife pages.  My preference would be to define "Cyber Set A" and "Cyber Set B" for the two sets of 4 bits, and reference these as included to show the differentiation  .

Love the family tree too - Really nice - Really useful - That could go somewhere on the tools main page, or better still the page of 91mm (and 84mm) SAKs that does not have the layers ?? Someone else here did one of those with all the models, and as you say it was pretty complex - So I think your curent model one works best - And you can always cross reference a current model to an older model if you will

I'll upload the diagram and we can work out where to position it  .

[Huntsman]

OK SAK fans

Help needed please......

1. One thing the WIKI is sadly lacking is dates - Can anyone help?
- For instance when a model came out and when it was discontinued.
We have a History section where this could go but it is rarely populated
Of course for the longer running knives this is a little complex eg The Climber - previously was the Traveller, prior to that a numeric model no etc etc
But for some others it could be simpler
If anyone has any information on dates for models please put it here (and we will update) - or in the Wiki if you are an editor
I will be popping my tool dating spready into the tools section in the near future - So that will help with dating the tools

2. From the very generic to the very specific - Is the 'Luxury Automobile - Special' a real SAK
There is the three layer Automobile which is well defined - There is also the three layer Automobile Special, which is also well defined.
Although rather unfortunately named, if you ask me, as it is more of a thinner Grand Prix
We have the 5 layer Luxury Automobile - Also well defined
Then in the 5 layer index page there is a knife called the 'Luxury Automobile - Special' - The link takes you to the Luxury Automobile - But there is nothing in that page to describe that SAK. The layer index page indicates that it has a Phillips not a corkscrew - But that is all -
Does it really exist ??- If so I will update the Lux Auto page with this description (ie Lux. Auto swapping corks. for Ph.)
If not can we get rid of it in the index page??

My latest updates:

• Re-ordered the Swiss Buck Model List from alphabetical - to Layers within Length, then alpa
  - If you are a SAKWIKI user trying to find a knife (eg just bought off evilbay) - you will more than likely know it's length, and # layers, but not it's name - so the table will work much better for you now.
  BTW - I had a big, big fight with the wiki table - But got there in the end, and it looks great now
• On going reformatting of the Related Knives section (orphaned bulets and icons)
• Revised the Spartan intro paragraph (  very brave, for such an iconic SAK !!) - Is it OK?

Any comments, feedback, suggestions, requests - Let me know 

[Huntsman]

Well not too many responses to that post !!   

On the Luxury Automobile Special - I think I might answer my own question.
I searched the net and could not find any references to it anywhere - Not in Smart Knives or a few blogs (some from our people - eg LeaF, Stressmaster) or anywhere else.
I think the infamous 'Luxury Autombile Special' is actually the Handyman 7236maU - The toolsets match !
So I am proposing to delete the LAS from the 91mm lists - OK??

In my search I found a very interesting site: Victorinox Enciclopedia
- OK so it's in Italian - But does it look familiar ............ Very familiar

Well I thought I had finished my editing - But I don't seem to be able to stop 
Discovered the Swisstool pages and they needed some work.
Here's what I did ...
Split up the intro para a bit; Put the individual common tools in the 'Handles section' in a nice bulleted list - in line with the rest of SAKWIKI; Created a new section for the models, and their tool variations (best bit  ); Converted the 'Removable Tools' section from a 'stream of consciousness' to a nice bulleted list; Tidied up the variations section.
Now you can clearly and easily see which tools are in which models, and the differences between the models 
And similar changes for the Spirit.

As always:
Any comments, feedback, suggestions, requests, criticisms - Let me know   

[Little Tinker]

I think the availability dates would be handy as well.  Small wrinkle perhaps that they seem to be region related sometimes though.

Luxury automobile are not words I get to use much, and can't help this time either.

[m47mu74nt]

I was trying to unbreak links toward SOSAK on the Soldier 1961 sakwiki page...
I could find the WaffenKontrolle article on SwissArmyKnights,
but for "Soldier Variants" only found this :
Soldier variants, part 2
and an old broken cache of the original post
I found this (in french)
This pic is great too, but would need a legend)


So, HELP 

[JamesJ]

I realize this ain't a "submit errors" thread but here I go again  <--me

Is this supposed to be 100mm?

[Huntsman]

I realize this ain't a "submit errors" thread but here I go again  <--me
Is this supposed to be 100mm?

I think it could be - I don't think any editors here would have a problem with that!!

Good spot (I rarely visit that page) - And look again       

And/or become an editor ! 

[Oxford_Guy]

The SAKWiki is a wonderful thing, but I've not been able to find any way to search it - am I missing something obvious, or is search for some reason not currently implemented?

[m47mu74nt]

The SAKWiki is a wonderful thing, but I've not been able to find any way to search it - am I missing something obvious, or is search for some reason not currently implemented?

best way : go to google, and type

Code: [Select]

site:http://www.sakwiki.com climber to get climber related SAKwiki articles

more simple way simply type sakwiki before what you are searching for:

Code: [Select]

sakwiki climber (which will give you also non sakwiki sites talking about sakwiki and climber

[Huntsman]

Yes I have had that problem too - And also used M47's 2nd solution

However there is a native serach capability - But only if you logon with your user id

If you logon then  a search field  becomes available where the logon fields were and it works just like you'd expect it to - even your search term is highlighted in the texts

[Oxford_Guy]

Yes I have had that problem too - And also used M47's 2nd solution

However there is a native serach capability - But only if you logon with your user id

If you logon then  a search field  becomes available where the logon fields were and it works just like you'd expect it to - even your search term is highlighted in the texts

Ah okay, I better register then! 

[m47mu74nt]

Yes I have had that problem too - And also used M47's 2nd solution

However there is a native serach capability - But only if you logon with your user id

If you logon then  a search field  becomes available where the logon fields were and it works just like you'd expect it to - even your search term is highlighted in the texts

You are perfectly right, but it takes a lot less time to type "sakwiki+[what you search for]" in the address bar, than going to sakwiki, log in, search 
and to highlight the term CTRL+F [what you search for]

[Huntsman]

OK - So you want to get into a 'my way is better than your way' debate

That's fine - I concede - You win - Congratulations 

For me - I was just answering a question that was asked - And Oxford Guy, and anyone else, can make their own decision on what works best/well for them

[m47mu74nt]

That only was the lurker option.

BTW no one helped for the soldier 1961 variants. I doubt nobody knows...

[Oxford_Guy]

OK - So you want to get into a 'my way is better than your way' debate

That's fine - I concede - You win - Congratulations 

For me - I was just answering a question that was asked - And Oxford Guy, and anyone else, can make their own decision on what works best/well for them

Well I've got several options for searching now, so all good - thanks guys! 

[jaya_man]

Was just browsing the 111mm fireman on sakwiki...

http://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Fireman

Under related knives, Trekker should have probably read "replaces corkscrew with phillips and removes belt cutter" should it not?

[Huntsman]

The Tomo is currently documented as a variation on the Classic in the WIKI ....... Really

I think it is a separate model and as such should have its own page.

What say you?  - Oh Knights

Speak and it shall be done 

[jaya_man]

It has exactly the same tool set and tool size as the classic sd... minus T&T...

I think it should be ok for it's own page...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

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.

[an0nemus]

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!