Talk:576: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
it would be nice.) | it would be nice.) | ||
[[User:Kurt|Kurt]] ([[User talk:Kurt|talk]]) 05:35, 28 February 2021 (PST) | [[User:Kurt|Kurt]] ([[User talk:Kurt|talk]]) 05:35, 28 February 2021 (PST) | ||
---- | |||
Kurt, I am not opposed to the extra Specs subpage at all, I just wonder if its really necessary. To me the beauty of Tekwiki is the overview, comparison, and context that is added to the information available in Tektronix manuals. Replicating pages of information 1:1 from the manual to me personally does not provide extra benefit. What would be beneficial would be standardized specs for categories (e.g. each scope should have a bandwidth spec and it should be the nth line of the Spec table) but I see that this is probably hard to do consistently for all categories, and there will be many exceptions. As a side note and compliment, I really enjoy the freedom here compared to other collector portals (e.g. Radiomuseum.org) wich are very restrictive, so maybe my idea wouldn't be that smart even from this perspective. [[User:Gregor|Gregor]] ([[User talk:Gregor|talk]]) 18:17, 28 February 2021 (MST) | |||
Revision as of 18:17, 28 February 2021
I would suggest to move the detailed specification tables to a separate page and only present a compact specification here that is more in line with other pages on Tekwiki. The article otherwise seems overloaded with data. Gregor (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (MST)
I agree. The detailed specification tables are great, but they make the page too long when they're inline. A couple of possible ideas:
- Move the detailed specs to a different page, as you suggested.
- Possible refinement: Create a new subpage, like the "Repairs" page, for "Specs".
I suspect that a lot of Tekwiki viewers aren't even aware of the subpages so, if we chose to go that route, we might need link from the instrument page to the Specs subpage to ensure the relevance of the Specs subpage. There are some clumsy/confusing aspects of the subpages, though, or at least how we are currently using them. Lots of pages have a "Repairs" subpage where it doesn't make sense, e.g., "Howard Vollum/Repairs". I'm sure we could employ/invent some sort of multiple inheritance class/templating scheme for the pages, but one of the goals is to keep the wiki editable by people who aren't Mediawiki experts. The similarity in look and the applicability of documentation from Wikipedia to Tekwiki is an asset. I'm in favor of having a Specs subpage and I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that Howard Vollum will get a Specs page, as well. (But if we could fix that without burdening the casual user with extra complexity, it would be nice.) Kurt (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2021 (PST)
Kurt, I am not opposed to the extra Specs subpage at all, I just wonder if its really necessary. To me the beauty of Tekwiki is the overview, comparison, and context that is added to the information available in Tektronix manuals. Replicating pages of information 1:1 from the manual to me personally does not provide extra benefit. What would be beneficial would be standardized specs for categories (e.g. each scope should have a bandwidth spec and it should be the nth line of the Spec table) but I see that this is probably hard to do consistently for all categories, and there will be many exceptions. As a side note and compliment, I really enjoy the freedom here compared to other collector portals (e.g. Radiomuseum.org) wich are very restrictive, so maybe my idea wouldn't be that smart even from this perspective. Gregor (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2021 (MST)