39,731
edits
Talk:576: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
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) | 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) | ||
:I'm not happy with a separate specs page either. The idea (mine anyway) was to have some key specs at a glance high up in the article – after the short description but before any lengthy waffling. Now admittedly on certain models the space table has suffered from overload of less relevant facts, a discussion I had elsewhere (originally shipped accessories may be of interest to some but don't deserve the limelight spot).<br/>I would propose to rename the section "Key Specifications" (can be done centrally in the template) and move excess content down on the page (or into a separate subpage if you really feel like that – most would remain pretty empty for some time to come, though). <br />BTW, the longer-term intent of the "Spec" template was to allow generating tables across devices automatically, at least for consistently named parameters like Bandwidth. Semantic MediaWiki can do that with a little work in the template, but I have found it a bit of a pain to maintain over releases, it's a bit of a heavyweight "plugin". Haven't researched simpler alternatives yet, however. (Oh and AFAIK there are no anal-retentive old Swiss guys here, so no danger of TW becoming RM II. Otherwise you would have seen mandatory sections like "case style" and "sound reproduction" already :-) --[[User:Peter|Peter]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 00:49, 1 March 2021 (PST) (PS. Howard Vollum has no Repairs sub-page – the link is red. I'll add one when I find out how to repair him, he's been sorely missed.) | |||