Talk:511A: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

Just happened across this page. Seems like it should redirect to 511, as everything that might go on a 511A page is already on the 511 page. I see that Peter has gone back and forth on this, but I'll vote for the simple redirect, if only for simplicity and consistency.

[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney, Madison, WI]] ([[User talk:Jadney|talk]]) 18:15, 16 March 2024 (PDT)~~Jim Adney~~

[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney, Madison, WI]] ([[User talk:Jadney|talk]]) 18:15, 16 March 2024 (PDT)

: The instrument macro on this page is needed because otherwise we have no reference to the 511A.

Line 8:

: --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 05:47, 20 March 2024 (PDT)

Sorry, but I don't see your point. The only content on this (511A) page is a photo of a 511, which is also shown on the 511 page. So everything here is redundant, plus if someone searched for 511A and came to this page, they would miss all the 511A info that's already, and appropriately, on the 511 page. If someone comes up with lots of 511A info that they want to add to this page later on, there's nothing to prevent that.

::Sorry, but I don't see your point. The only content on this (511A) page is a photo of a 511, which is also shown on the 511 page. So everything here is redundant, plus if someone searched for 511A and came to this page, they would miss all the 511A info that's already, and appropriately, on the 511 page. If someone comes up with lots of 511A info that they want to add to this page later on, there's nothing to prevent that. --[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney]] 30 Apr 2024

--[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney]]

:::Every page can have only one sidebar template which is needed to link the database to the page, ergo each variant needs to have its own page with its own sidebar. If there is sufficient information for the other model and/or the specs are different enough, the second page will be a full article as in the case of the [[AM503A]] (and why would we want to prevent that?), otherwise we just reference the base model. I have extended the 511A page to a basic description plus a link, so there's no confusion. (And fixed the wrong image, thanks for noticing this.) We can replace the -A, -B etc. page redirects with similar stub pages where relevant. As I said this wasn't necessary before the software upgrade as you would have been redirected silently. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:49, 4 May 2024 (PDT)

:: Ah - thanks Peter - that might explain something I spotted a few weeks ago. The [[564]] page includes info for the [[564B]] but there's a separate page... I was wondering when I saw it if things were just in flux and the some other edit might come along...

Line 21:

Line 22:

|discontinued=(?) (other model 1999)

:: Am I barking up the wrong tree? [[User:Qfissler|Qfissler]] ([[User talk:Qfissler|talk]]) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (PDT)

:::I have clarified the explanation in [[:~~template~~:Oscilloscope Sidebar]] - these fields should have ''only'' the year or (?) in them, no other information ~~- each~~ model has its own page with the template even if it otherwise redirects to the base page e.g. 564B to 564~~, and the~~ field contents go into the database (Cargo tables), therefore adding other information here messes up the table. Extra information such as in your example should go in the article text. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:30, 4 May 2024 (PDT)

:::I have clarified the explanation in [[:Template:Oscilloscope Sidebar]] - these fields should have ''only'' the year or (?) in them, no other information. Each model has its own page with the template even if it otherwise redirects to the base page e.g. 564B to 564. The introduction/discontinuation field contents go into the database (Cargo tables) under the entry defined by the page name, therefore adding other information here messes up the database table. Extra information such as in your example should go in the article text. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:30, 4 May 2024 (PDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Just happened across this page. Seems like it should redirect to 511, as everything that might go on a 511A page is already on the 511 page. I see that Peter has gone back and forth on this, but I'll vote for the simple redirect, if only for simplicity and consistency.
-[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney, Madison, WI]] ([[User talk:Jadney|talk]]) 18:15, 16 March 2024 (PDT)Jim Adney
+[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney, Madison, WI]] ([[User talk:Jadney|talk]]) 18:15, 16 March 2024 (PDT)
 : The instrument macro on this page is needed because otherwise we have no reference to the 511A.
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 : --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 05:47, 20 March 2024 (PDT)
-Sorry, but I don't see your point. The only content on this (511A) page is a photo of a 511, which is also shown on the 511 page. So everything here is redundant, plus if someone searched for 511A and came to this page, they would miss all the 511A info that's already, and appropriately, on the 511 page. If someone comes up with lots of 511A info that they want to add to this page later on, there's nothing to prevent that.
+::Sorry, but I don't see your point. The only content on this (511A) page is a photo of a 511, which is also shown on the 511 page. So everything here is redundant, plus if someone searched for 511A and came to this page, they would miss all the 511A info that's already, and appropriately, on the 511 page. If someone comes up with lots of 511A info that they want to add to this page later on, there's nothing to prevent that. --[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney]] 30 Apr 2024
---[[User:Jadney|Jim Adney]]
+:::Every page can have only one sidebar template which is needed to link the database to the page, ergo each variant needs to have its own page with its own sidebar. If there is sufficient information for the other model and/or the specs are different enough, the second page will be a full article as in the case of the [[AM503A]] (and why would we want to prevent that?), otherwise we just reference the base model. I have extended the 511A page to a basic description plus a link, so there's no confusion. (And fixed the wrong image, thanks for noticing this.) We can replace the -A, -B etc. page redirects with similar stub pages where relevant. As I said this wasn't necessary before the software upgrade as you would have been redirected silently. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:49, 4 May 2024 (PDT)
 :: Ah - thanks Peter - that might explain something I spotted a few weeks ago. The [[564]] page includes info for the [[564B]] but there's a separate page... I was wondering when I saw it if things were just in flux and the some other edit might come along...
@@ Line 21: / Line 22: @@
   |discontinued=(?) (other model 1999)
 :: Am I barking up the wrong tree? [[User:Qfissler|Qfissler]] ([[User talk:Qfissler|talk]]) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (PDT)
-:::I have clarified the explanation in [[:template:Oscilloscope Sidebar]] - these fields should have ''only'' the year or (?) in them, no other information - each model has its own page with the template even if it otherwise redirects to the base page e.g. 564B to 564, and the field contents go into the database (Cargo tables), therefore adding other information here messes up the table. Extra information such as in your example should go in the article text. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:30, 4 May 2024 (PDT)
+:::I have clarified the explanation in [[:Template:Oscilloscope Sidebar]] - these fields should have ''only'' the year or (?) in them, no other information. Each model has its own page with the template even if it otherwise redirects to the base page e.g. 564B to 564. The introduction/discontinuation field contents go into the database (Cargo tables) under the entry defined by the page name, therefore adding other information here messes up the database table. Extra information such as in your example should go in the article text. --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 04:30, 4 May 2024 (PDT)

Talk:511A: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu