Merging wiki entries?

[kbdfr]

The wiki contains two entries for the same keyboard:
wiki/Cherry_G80-0832
and
wiki/Gravograph_G80-0832H-04
which in fact is just a special edition of this one:
wiki/Cherry_G80-0778

I hope someone can fix that without waiting for me to imagine how

[Findecanor]

I think that if a Cherry G80-series keyboard has a different model number then it should have a different page even if they look the same.
The Gravograph-branded keyboard should not have got its own page though and there shouldn't be any differentiation on the code after the model number.

[hansichen]

I strongly disagree. Especially with the very old boards every protocol and language had its own product number. One board can easily have six or more product numbers and nobody would know what belongs to each other. In my opinion we should take the lowest serial number and then to redirects to the page. And on the page we should have the product number overview like many pages already have.

[Blaise170]

It makes more sense in my mind to combine them all into a G80 page where each subtype gets its own subsection.

[Findecanor]

Especially with the very old boards every protocol and language had its own product number.

I wasn't aware of that. That would be a strong case. But I think we should only do that for those boards.

[webwit]

It makes more sense in my mind to combine them all into a G80 page where each subtype gets its own subsection.

I like the format that if such a subsection would succeeds a certain length, it has a link to the "full article" instead, a separate page. So it could be both really.

[Blaise170]

I like the format that if such a subsection would succeeds a certain length, it has a link to the "full article" instead, a separate page. So it could be both really.

Yeah, I see that quite often on Wikipedia and it works well.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

It's a tough call. For example, I've left the page on the SIIG MiniTouch there, because a) it's a very prominent product, and b) it has a specific production history.

Generally, you'd only want a separate page if the product has some notable history or details that are worth separating out.

In most cases, for all the re-brands and variants, I just create redirect pages with their own set of categories, so that each product appears in the correct category. The actual page with the content would not have any categories except for the OEM/original/primary product and its direct variants.

However, it gets complicated fast, and there's no definitive way to determine when to split pages and when to merge them, whether that's about products or concepts.

For example, the "[wiki]gold crosspoint[/wiki]" page — should this be merged into [wiki]metal contact switch[/wiki]? Or should switch contacts in general get a page? (As a note, I need to rename gold crosspoint to crosspoint contact in any regard, as they're not always gold — Cherry M82 is silver-palladium.)


Cherry G80-0832 and Gravograph G80-0832H-04 are definitely the same and should be one page, but under what title?

Merging both into Cherry G80-0778 is more awkward: they look the same, but we would need to define some ground rules for what constitutes a distinct Cherry model, and that's going to be hard :(

[kbdfr]

I do own both a G80-0832 (Gravograph) and a G80-0778 (rack mount version, I sold the regular version featured in the wiki but my pics are still there), so I could in theory make a comparison, but as I lack the skills required for anything technical in such an endeavour, it could only be a prima facie comparison (and of course I also lack the time).

When I had both on my desk, to me it was obviously the same keyboard except of course for the keycaps. I suppose it is in fact the real difference and Cherry simply took the G80-0778 and OEM'd it for Gravograph, an engraving machine manufacturer, with caps matching their specific needs and software. In this case the G80-0832 would be just a specific version of the G80-0778.

Hence this thread.

Spoiler:

By the way, some time ago I had contact to a Gravograph user still using their machine with its original keyboard, for which they were looking for a replacement solution because it had started working somewhat erratically.
Instead of selling them a Tipro, which would have been more than perfect for their needs, I suggested simply cleaning their keyboard with canned air.
It worked, so they were not interested in a sale any more. Silly me

[webwit]

It's a tough call. For example, I've left the page on the SIIG MiniTouch there, because a) it's a very prominent product, and b) it has a specific production history.

Generally, you'd only want a separate page if the product has some notable history or details that are worth separating out.

I don't think it's so tough in our case. We are not wikipedia where prominence is very important. But we're all about documenting minutia. So if we have an article about a keyboard with 10 subsections about different variants, and one person has one and goes wild in documenting/photographing it and makes a full article about it too, so what.

[kbdfr]

It's a tough call. For example, I've left the page on the SIIG MiniTouch there, because a) it's a very prominent product, and b) it has a specific production history.

Generally, you'd only want a separate page if the product has some notable history or details that are worth separating out.

I don't think it's so tough in our case. We are not wikipedia where prominence is very important. But we're all about documenting minutia. So if we have an article about a keyboard with 10 subsections about different variants, and one person has one and goes wild in documenting/photographing it and makes a full article about it too, so what.

I would tend to agree, provided of course there are at least links in both directions.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

I don't think it's so tough in our case. We are not wikipedia where prominence is very important. But we're all about documenting minutia. So if we have an article about a keyboard with 10 subsections about different variants, and one person has one and goes wild in documenting/photographing it and makes a full article about it too, so what.

That's only one end of the scale. In kbdfr's case, it's two pages about the exact same keyboard! In the middle are all the awkward cases, where it's never clear — is there enough written about something to make it worth splitting it out? I've wrestled with this many times and never come to any firm conclusions.

With keyboards, splitting a page means having to repeat written detail and that's a nuisance: you don't want to have to write and maintain all the same details twice.

With articles (e.g. metal contact switches), it's also hard, because in effect all the sub-articles could be merged into one really long page, but would that be good? Does it make sense to have a page on metal contact switches but a separate page on switch contacts? I suspect not, so then why does gold crosspoint have a page? I may just merge that page into metal contact switches.

[consolation]

The wiki is often accessed by people trying to ID a keyboard prior to buying; having a longer page, with all the various subtypes that can be found under the model number / name, is much more useful than individual pages which can be easily missed. The most desirable models tend to come up nearer the top of searches, so users might miss the separate pages for the less valuable models.

My 2c - merge if possible.

[webwit]

having a longer page, with all the various subtypes that can be found under the model number / name, is much more useful than individual pages which can be easily missed

Maybe others have a different preference and like a separate page instead of ending up half way a long page.

[Blaise170]

I say, "Why not both?". Have a general listing of boards (i.e. wiki/Sharp_X68000) with links to individual pages if necessary.

[002]

Using Realforce as an example, there are so many models that differ only slightly in features that they offer that it would be silly to break them *all* out in to individual pages, but I think it might be appropriate to have separate pages for some models where there are enough features that differentiate them without just repeating the same old info, as Daniel says. This could be because of a facelift or cosmetic overhaul (e.g. Realforce RGB / R2), or maybe it's a really popular subset (e.g. Realforce 87U and TKL variants), or the board has unique features that set it apart (e.g. Realforce 108UH-ANLG).

As it stands now, none of the examples given have separate pages. I have considered it, but it always boiled down to the thought of *do I really have more than a stubs-worth to say about the 87U?* For the moment, Daniel and I added a bunch of re-directs which I ?guess? works well (nobody has complained). On the other hand, if you look at Topre OEM Keyboards page, *most* models there have separate pages, but some have multiple models consolidated. It just came about naturally.

[consolation]

having a longer page, with all the various subtypes that can be found under the model number / name, is much more useful than individual pages which can be easily missed

Maybe others have a different preference and like a separate page instead of ending up half way a long page.

The point is; it'll give the user a very salient feedback that there are other potential models, that may look almost identical.

[snuci]

For the record, it doesn't matter to me. I put the second page in because I didn't know there was one already by another name. Sorry for the confusion but I guess it did cause a good discussion

[kbdfr]

I intend to soon merge both entries concerning the G80-0832 by

• adding the whole content of
  wiki/Gravograph_G80-0832H-04
  to
  wiki/Cherry_G80-0832
• making the necessary adapts (mentioning the G80-0778 in the introductory text, having all pics of both pages in the gallery)
• truncating "G80-0832H-04" wherever it appears to "G80-0832" (which obviously is the legit Cherry designation)
• adding links to other forum posts/topics and to the G80-0778 wiki page.
• adding to the G80-0778 wiki page a reference and a link to the G80-0832 wiki page.

Any objections?

[002]

Sounds good to me.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

I always prefer to list items under the customer-facing identity. For example, one of the Amiga 2000 keyboards is a Cherry G80-0924, but the page name is Commodore Amiga 2000 — the page is named for the customer-facing product (regardless of the fact that that machine has non-Cherry keyboards: the Commodore Amiga 1000 page is not called "Mitsumi KCT-A89YC" or "Commodore KCT-A89YC" either).

I'd start the page in question with "Gravograph", but off-hand I don't know how they themselves referred to it, and whether there were more Gravograph keyboards.

For me, a page called "Cherry Gnn-nnnn" indicates a stock keyboard sold to customers under that identity and that identity alone. Where keyboards have a name like "eVolution STREAM", this is the customer-facing identity and thus the page title; model numbers like Gnn-nnnn are just too hard for humans to process.

The page in question would only be "Cherry Gnn-nnnn" here if you were to merge Cherry G80-0832 (Gravograph version) into Cherry G80-0778 (thing what looks the same), i.e. group all the similar keyboards under some arbitrary name. That's the difficult part: deciding the criteria for merging different model numbers, because the resulting page title wouldn't cover all the items on the page.

It gets worse, because G80-0778 is not the lowest model — that's [wiki]Cherry G80-0777[/wiki], which has its own page, but it's been adapted for use with an Amiga, and nobody knows why.

[kbdfr]

I always prefer to list items under the customer-facing identity.

This is of course a good argument, and it is an even better reason for naming the page G80-0832, because nowhere does "Gravograph" appear on the keyboard. Only the weird keycaps reveal it is the keyboard made for the Gravograph engraving machines, so someone confronted with just the keyboard will not know it is a Gravograph.

They will have to resort to the label, which says G80-0832H/04 (for snuci's board) and G80-0832H/09 (for mine). No clue what the last digit is supposed to mean.

And as the G8n-nnnn format is used (when applicable) throughout the wiki list of Cherry keyboards, it seems just logical to stick to it without the H (and the following characters), which in later Cherry keyboards were separated from the rest by a space.

After all, that's where someone searching the wiki will then be able to find it.

[snuci]

I'd have to side with Daniel on this one. Maybe it's because I am a vintage computer collector but I don't necessarily want to open up a keyboard and try to locate keyboard mechanism labels to determine what's in a keyboard for curiosity sake. Think of the use case. Someone see's a computerless keyboard on ebay or a friend will sell you a keyboard that was for their Amiga but they only know it's a Commodore keyboard that goes with an Amiga 2000.

I would consider the following and the Commodore keyboard is a good example.

1. If the keyboard goes with a known computer, list it by computer (eg Amiga 2000)
2. If the keyboard goes with a computer but it is unknown, list it by front facing brand and model on back, if available (eg. Leading Edge DC-2214. It goes with the Leading Edge Model D computer but nobody knows that unless you get a Model D)
3. If there is no front facing brand, list by rear model number, if visible on rear label
4. If there are no markings on the external case, list if by internal keyboard mechanism brand and model, if available.
5. If there are no markings anywhere, externally or internally, post a pic in the forums and see if anyone recognizes it.

If you post the keyboard at option 1, for example, and option 2, 3 and/or 4 are known, post link pages for these options back to the highest option (option 1 in this example).

In the case of the Gravograph, I did some hunting around to find that info as it was not marked. It was a variation of another keyboard mechanism as pointed out but I personally try to find what they keyboard went with, if I don't know it, because I try to match up the keyboard with the computer if the computer is interesting.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Blaise170]

I think a case by case basis is the only way we can really do it. In the Gravograph example, of course it doesn't make much sense to only put it on the Cherry G80 page. On the other hand, having Generic KB1200, KB1201, KB1202, and KB1214 all on separate pages doesn't make sense if the differences are minor such as layout (ANSI vs ISO vs JIS) or something like different LED colours.

[kbdfr]

How about naming the page "Cherry G80-0832 (Gravograph)"?
That would ease finding it as well from the G80-0832 as from the Gravograph end.
And we could redirect to that page both from a "G80-0832" and from a "Gravograph" search.

Spoiler:

By the way, how do you modify page titles in the wiki?
And how do you make redirects?

[Daniel Beardsmore]

How about naming the page "Cherry G80-0832 (Gravograph)"?

Why create a whole new name format for just one page?

By the way, how do you modify page titles in the wiki?

Under More → Move at the top right. This will automatically create the redirect (unless you decline it) but you need to manually categorise the redirect page afterwards.

And how do you make redirects?

It is a page whose sole content (aside from categories) of:

#REDIRECT [[Target page]]

(Ignore the stupid hashtag nonsense)