Been doing some work in the Wiki

[Nick4]

You're right about the identifier for Evo S557 (it should end in "SE"), I accidentally used EvoWood S557's twice  I'll correct it as fast as possible...
As for Evolution Grip models, they are not "missing"... They are excluded as I used only basic models (not scales variations except for wood) in almost all of my posters. 

Ok! 

Delemont 85mm poster with corrected Evolution S557 identifier

Thank you very much! 

I was checking out the 74mm pages on the Wiki and I noticed that the 75mm models are listed below the 74mm SAKs. How about we move them to a dedicated 75mm page? I know it's basically a discontinued product line but still. They have noting in common with the double sided/floating spring frame (Executive, Ambassador, etc.). This has probably been discussed before

That sounds reasonable to me.

Also, on the Accountant page, none of the models with scissors are mentioned. Should they be, being discontinued decades ago?

IMHO, should.

The old Accountant-style SAKs in 84mmm are not mentioned on the 84mm page. Should we add them?

IMHO, yes.

I would like to see more old identifiers (like 656 aCr+ for a cellidor "Executive" with shield & cross and T&T) mentioned on the pages of the modern equivalent models. What do you think?

It would be great! 

[Reinier]

Thanks Nick.

Perhaps we could split the 84mm page into three distinct pages? Since there are three different versions of the 84mm frame (regular, slim and lobster, right?).

[Huntsman]

Hi Guys,

I don't think the 74/75mm split was discussed before - The 75mm models were actually embedded in the one single list originally !!
- I took them out into a separate section a couple of years ago .

I would not do the split - Also not for the 84s !!
For me - Less is more.

If you think about our Wiki users:
- Making them go to another page, where there is very little variation, or limited new content - when they can clearly and easily see all the information on one page, is, at least IMHO, user-unfriendly/unnecessary.
Although as you mention - I do agree that the 75 vs 74 families are pretty different!!
However I do have an idea for the 75s - Which I will implement as soon as I finish this post - Check it out here
- Let me know - And we can keep or revert back. If we keep it - I'll make all the columns align

Re: Addition of the scissor Accountants - Yep add them in  - Great !!   

Re: The 84mm Accountants - Yep - I would recommend a new section in the 84mm page, as per the above 

Re: Addition of any old model numbers - Yep add them in  - Great !!   :tu

Thanks Reinier for the recent updates and also NeleDo for the updated Delemont image - Has anyone put it in yet??

[enki_ck]

Your link goes to the main page.

[Nick4]

Your link goes to the main page.

I suppose this refers to the following.

[Huntsman]

Yep - That's it
Although on my screen the line does not wrap - Which looks a bit better
I think if you dont leave gaps also it does not wrap....

Thoughts?

[Reinier]

I vote separate page.
Yes, less is more, but correct is better

[Max Stone]

There is a stub reference to the 75mm range under "Others", with a link to the gallery....

https://www.sakwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page=Victorinox+Plier+Multitools+-+Swiss+Card+-+Others

I would vote to have a separate page for the 75s if there's enough content?

[Reinier]

Yes and I just fixed the gallery link on the 74mm page but there is no link to the 75mm gallery there.
The 75mm section on the Others page should be removed in my opinion.
Also, the Baker's Knife should not be listed under 91mm

Just my 2 cents.

[Huntsman]

I added the 75mm gallery to the relevant 74mm pages - To at least get the current set up more correct, whilst we discuss !!
And as it was a quick and easy change   

At the moment we seem to be 3:1 in favour of a new page for the 75s!!                  
If we did do this: .......
Would we put the new page under Others to replace the current gallery link - As the 75s are not really a proper or large family and the three models themselves are a little different from each other
(We did this for the non mainline Wenger sizes....) 
Or would we create a new 75mm line in the main menu section in the side panel ?      

Re the Bakers' knife:
Again that model was originally just in the main alphabetical list - So I moved it out to the bottom!!
However - Agreed Reinier  - It is a bit of an anomaly on the 91mm pages - Would you put it on the Others page? 
Probably a better home for it! - I'd say go for it!

[Max Stone]

My interpretation is that the "others" page is dedicated to Victorinox products that do not fit into the traditional SAK pocket knife design, so is a catch-all for unusual products, or divergent product lines, like the Hunter and Swisstool.

So I would rather see the 75mm removed from the "others" page and promoted to their rightful place alongside their larger and smaller brothers and sisters. Even if there are only three models, it will help to give them the visibility they deserve (and maybe create more interest for collectors).

[Echotech]

Think the 74/75 listing works well, easy to find and considering just the 3 models, having them listed at the bottom as they are seems fine


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[comis]

My interpretation is that the "others" page is dedicated to Victorinox products that do not fit into the traditional SAK pocket knife design, so is a catch-all for unusual products, or divergent product lines, like the Hunter and Swisstool.

So I would rather see the 75mm removed from the "others" page and promoted to their rightful place alongside their larger and smaller brothers and sisters. Even if there are only three models, it will help to give them the visibility they deserve (and maybe create more interest for collectors).

   I'd think it may be beneficial to move Swisstool out of 'others' too, since I think it is an important product offerings in Victorinox lineup, and to place it along with Travelling alarm seems to diminish it's importance(maybe Pliers-based tool?).  Another humble suggestion is to create a new page for 'Knives', since Vic does have a large offering in various kind of knives(kitchen, fixed blade, folding knives, etc)

[comis]

Think the 74/75 listing works well, easy to find and considering just the 3 models, having them listed at the bottom as they are seems fine


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Reinier]

I totally disagree. Different size, different shape/frame type.

I'm with Max on this one.
We will never all agree I guess

Talking about Others: should we add models like the Outdoor Master Mic? Personally I'm not interested in them since they are not SAKs. But then again, we also mention the Travel Alarms

Also, I think we should add a "Specials" page, listing models like the HP SpatuClimber, Fuchs SAK with technician's screwdriver, Mammut Climber, 111mm Outdoortool with in-line awl, etc. What do you guys think? I know some of those are currently listed like the regular models or mentioned in the Variations and/or Identifiers sections.

[Reinier]

I took the liberty to add a 93mm 4 layer page. Yes, I know there's only one model (yet ), but I see no reason why it shouldn't be added.

By the way, what does the rogue 3 in the 100mm section mean? (sidebar table)? The page does exist (https://sakwiki.com/Victorinox+100mm+3+Layer+Models) but there's no link and I can't think of any models to add. Maybe some vintage ones from a million years ago?

[Max Stone]

Definitely a prehistoric placeholder from the Cambrian era 

[enki_ck]

We actually did have this discussion some years ago and it was decided that 3 models is too little for a separate page and newcomers to SAKs would find it difficult to find. Heck we have more models on a single Cybertool or a Champion page than we would on a parental level page as is the layer category.

And folks, especially newcomers don't go around with calipers to find out if their SAK is 74 or 75mm. Especially considering that with the downsizing of the 74mm line from the Vic lineup these will both be historical pages soon with no more additions to be added.

I was against the merger of model pages that were done for a number of reasons, but in this case, I think it would be better if we left them as is.

[LeaF]

The fact that on Sakwiki we have only three models in 75mm range, absolutely does not mean that only these three models exists.

In general: 74 and 75 lineups definitely different entities and should be presented in different pages.

Just my 2 cents, nothing more.

P.S. AFAIK, 68mm range of SAKs are the same models as 75mm (just smaller). Should they have own page or share the same page with 75mm? (a rhetorical question)

[Reinier]

Excellent point Alex

[enki_ck]

Afaik all so far included in this discussion are editors and admins on the wiki. So if you know of or have other 75 or 74mm models that aren't so far listed in the wiki, by all means add them.

[Reinier]

Especially 75mm ones, thereby increasing their chance of getting their own page

[enki_ck]

[LeaF]

Afaik all so far included in this discussion are editors and admins on the wiki. So if you know of or have other 75 or 74mm models that aren't so far listed in the wiki, by all means add them.

I did it in the past (I mean adding / editing), but stopped this practice because I wasn't happy with changes there.
One of the reason for that was a situation, when some models were merged into one page. Even after long (senseless) discussions, even if me or other users and editors were completely disagree with such solutions.

I didn't post anything in this thread last years I suppose (I promised to do not do that ), but latest idea about combining different models into one article made me more nervous...

I'm afraid that one day I will open Sakwiki and will see one static page with all models on it (sort from A to Z in best case).

Sorry for the long text.

[Reinier]

Personally, I don't like that newly added texts or other content immediately gets altered (always by the same editor) or moved to other sections within the page (intro/variations/identifiers). We don't all write in the same way and not all pages follow the same template. So I really don't see the point of correcting other people's contributions. It feels like "thanks for trying, but it's not good enough".

The wiki is not owned by one single person.

[pfrsantos]

Thanks Nick.

Perhaps we could split the 84mm page into three distinct pages? Since there are three different versions of the 84mm frame (regular, slim and lobster, right?).

Wow! I didn't knew that! You mean there's a regular and slim versions of zoidberg?!

 

[Nick4]

Personally, I don't like that newly added texts or other content immediately gets altered (always by the same editor) or moved to other sections within the page (intro/variations/identifiers). We don't all write in the same way and not all pages follow the same template. So I really don't see the point of correcting other people's contributions. It feels like "thanks for trying, but it's not good enough".

The wiki is not owned by one single person.

On the contrary, I advocate the maximum standardization and use of templates, whenever possible.

At the same time, I do not make a difference between the pages created by me and others. And I don’t worry if someone changes the contributions I made. The wiki is not owned by one single person. 

But, anyway, I don't have time to work on the SAKWiki project right now, so my opinion doesn't matter. 

P.S. I apologize to everyone who was upset by my edits. 

[Reinier]

On the contrary, I advocate the maximum standardization and use of templates, whenever possible.

Maybe I have not searched well enough, but what exactly is the template for a SAK page?

What information do we put in the intro section? Because I sometimes mention some specific variations (because why not?) and it gets moved to the Variations section. And who decides which variations are mentioned there, and which ones only get an entry in the Identifiers section?

Re. Identifiers: the European and US identifiers are not always listed in the same way. I like the version with headings for the different numbering systems. Maybe we could also add the old model numbers under a separate heading within the section?

It's also not always clear which variations are actually listed as variations and which ones are under Identifiers only.

At the same time, I do not make a difference between the pages created by me and others. And I don’t worry if someone changes the contributions I made. The wiki is not owned by one single person. 

I think some people sometimes force their opinion onto others. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe I shouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
But seriously: one page for all Cybertools? Makes no sense to me. Just one example.
And merging two model lines with different designs and different sizes into one page? I don't get it.

But, anyway, I don't have time to work on the SAKWiki project right now, so my opinion doesn't matter. 

Your opinion matters! To me anyways You are a huge contributor (unlike myself). But even if you were not, your opinion would still matter of course.

P.S. I apologize to everyone who was upset by my edits. 

I did not mean you in my previous post.

All good friends?

[Nick4]

Thank you very much for your frank opinion, Reinier!

Maybe I have not searched well enough, but what exactly is the template for a SAK page?

Strange, but I found it easily. (And if it did not exist, it would have to be created.)

And, surprisingly:
Last Modification: Friday 04 of January, 2019 19:10:55 MSK by Reinier.  

Perhaps this template is imperfect and needs to be reworked (for example, now everywhere the title of the section 'Related Knives' is replaced by 'Related Models').   
But this is also nothing more than a private issue of standardization.

What information do we put in the intro section? Because I sometimes mention some specific variations (because why not?) and it gets moved to the Variations section. And who decides which variations are mentioned there, and which ones only get an entry in the Identifiers section?

IMHO, all these issues can (and should) be discussed. 

Of course, standardization does not exclude flexibility and creative freedom.

Re. Identifiers: the European and US identifiers are not always listed in the same way. I like the version with headings for the different numbering systems. Maybe we could also add the old model numbers under a separate heading within the section?

I do not know. This can also be discussed.

But my reasons for the preference for standardization are very simple:

• SAKWiki for visitors is just a site like the others.
• And any professionally made site should have a clear navigation, an unified design and formatting (so to speak, as in the army - "albeit ugly, but uniform"). In particular, there should be no empty sections, physical specifications, etc.
• The information must be accurate, consistent, complete and easy to find.

My little coloboration experience at Wikipedia also tells me that templates and guidelines should be used as often as possible.

But, of course, this is all nothing more than my personal opinion.

It's also not always clear which variations are actually listed as variations and which ones are under Identifiers only.

IMHO, all possible variations should be described in the 'Variations' section.

I think some people sometimes force their opinion onto others. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe I shouldn't make such a big deal out of it.

Maybe.

But for me personally, working on the SAKWiki project is an opportunity to thank all those who have generously shared information.
And I don’t worry if someone changes my contribution (the experience of working on Wikipedia is very helpful here - it’s much more stressful there).

In the end, as one friend of mine says, "calm, children are not born from this."   

But seriously: one page for all Cybertools? Makes no sense to me. Just one example.

And for me, too, it looks rather strange (I somehow missed this moment and was now very unpleasantly surprised). 

And merging two model lines with different designs and different sizes into one page? I don't get it.

Yes, I agree. In my opinion, the accurate classification is just as important to an encyclopedia (which is SAKWiki) as standardizing design templates.

Your opinion matters! To me anyways You are a huge contributor (unlike myself). But even if you were not, your opinion would still matter of course.

Thank you very much!  But you are exaggerating my contribution.
 

I did not mean you in my previous post.

All good friends?

Of course! All good friends. 

[Reinier]

Thank you very much for your frank opinion, Reinier!
Strange, but I found it easily. (And if it did not exist, it would have to be created.)

TBH I didn't search at all

And, surprisingly:
Last Modification: Friday 04 of January, 2019 19:10:55 MSK by Reinier.  

That's weird. I must have been drunk or something back then

OK we should definitely update that template