I have a AXS 32. Single notes sound good but strumming is just a wash of a chord. Any suggestions?

I'm trying to figure out the best way to move forward in building out the portals and I'd like to solicit some advice.

As a proof of concept I implemented a reusable structure with the SA series wherein the models for each year each get a separate page which is just a snippet of the portal code; see 2011 SA series as an example. These are essentially building blocks which can then be reused on multiple pages. In this case, each of these is fragments is transcluded both on the series portal and the yearly portal.

This design allows any changes to be made in one place, rather than two (or more). This simplifies updates and also helps keep things in sync. The tradeoff is a bit of complexity since it might not be obvious to the casual user how to edit things. In this case, I think I'm alright with that since we might not want to encourage truly casual users from making changes to the portals anyway.

The other downside is that we end up with a bunch of pages (the portal snippets) which are really not meant to stand on their own. This isn't too big of an issue, but it would be nice if these snippets could be sort of hidden away. One way I've thought of to achieve this is to give these pages some common naming structure. For example they could be given names that start with "PF: " (for Portal Fragment), like "PF: 2011 SA series". While this doesn't really "hide" them, it does make them less likely to be stumbled upon in a search, since they won't show up in the search dropdown (unless the user starts their search with that prefix).

To explain what I mean by this, if I user currently were to type "2011 " into the site search a number of items would drop down. These include all of the 2011 catalog articles but also our 2011 SA series portal fragment. Adding a prefix to this page title would prevent that sort of casual discovery.

So, what do you think? Is this sort of modular structure really the way to go? If so, how best do we implement it? Do you like the idea of the "PF:" prefix to identify these snippets? Have you done or seen anything similar to this on other wikis you've encountered? Any advice you have would be appeciated.  \m/ DeeJayK^Talk! 14:29, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick update:

I've just finished documenting all the Signature models through 2016. I believe we now have comprehensive coverage of these models back to at least 2010, and likely further.

It's not far-fetched this time, the idea is simply to replace "Expanded Ibanez Universe" with "Ibanez Universe" (name shortened), and to move it before "Views and background" in the main menu.

Also thinking of renaming "Views and Background" into "Backstage". Short, efficient. It's simply a "throw here any content that doesn't find its place elsewhere" category now.

For more background on this discussion, see Forum:Navigation between Category/Series/Portal.

I've made some recent changes to the Portal:Paul Gilbert series article. In the ongoing "portal vs. category" debate I'd like to point this portal out as a potential model that we could leverage for other guitar series.

The major change I've made is the transclusion of the Paul Gilbert series article at the top of the page as well as the improvement of the display of the related category lists.

I'm contemplating renaming the Ibanez catalog articles (e.g. Full Line Catalog for USA 2015) to make them easier to use. Whenever I want to get to one of these articles using the site search box I have to do a lot of typing to get the article I'm looking to show up in the search drop-down. For example, if I'm looking for the 2015 USA catalog (linked above), I'll have to type "Full line catalog for U" until I'm ensured that article shows up in the drop-down. That functionality will only get worse as more catalog articles are added.

I would propose that these articles be renamed like "<YEAR> <AREA> full line catalog" or something similar.

Does this approach make sense to anyone else? Or is it just my extreme laziness that makes it appealing to me? Is there some other benefit of the existing naming structure that is alluding me?

Recently a huge revamp of the old sections is undertaken, including the fixed & tremolo bridges and the "other parts", among other. Now the pickups category is almost done: Category:Pickups.

Until now this section was full of incomplete lists, of single pickups randomly listed there with no connection, or no category at all, and of course tons of PU were missing.

The idea was to clean up *everything*, including the big, the huge "Ibanez pickups" list: it is split up among individual pages which are now way smaller and easier to read and to maintain.

Sometimes not much is known about particular series, (like VK pickups/Arondite, or the 2 year lifespan of the SZ pickups). But at least it can be easily improved later if somebody feels like it. Besides, all the pickups "redirects" should also work as expected.

I hope it will now makes things (a little) easier when filling up the pickups information in the new pages.

Hi there. The Category:Signature series is quite hard to build up because of a few reasons:

• sometimes a series is known by its artist name, like Joe Satriani series or Tosin Abasi series.
• sometimes Ibanez do not use the Artist name in its literature, but the model name instead: E-Gen series, APEX series.

So the both approaches can be found here. And to make things a little more fun, some series only have one model or two. Currently these models don't have a specific, detailed page like the other, instead they simply use a "redirect" to bring us to this sole guitar model.

I am quite doubtful about this last point: in fact many famous guitarists play the Ibanez guitars. Most of them use the regular production models, with a little touch of custom here or there, but that's NOT what is called a "signature". On the other hand, artists wo have their own signature means that Ibanez put some trust, have some hope in them (it sometimes depends on the artist notoriety, or the musical vibe at that time, like nu-metal 10 years ago or metalcore/djent and such). As a wiki-editor I don't feel comfortable using a simple "redirect" with an artist's model which benefits from such an endorsement. So even if a model is discontinued, if the band has split up, if the musical style is old-fashioned, I'd still rather have a nice, detailed page for every one of them, no redirect.

What do you think about it? What would you prefer? The discussion stays open.

I'm getting started on adding the 2014 models. I'm beginning with the Signature models. After that, the catalogs divide pretty neatly into the RG series (front half) and everything else (back half), although it seems that a lot of the new models are in the back half this time.

Hi, I've been trying to find a way to significantly improve the navigation over the wiki and one of the key would be to use the good old "Titlebox". Details here: Template:Titlebox (do note that this template works with Template:Titlebox/Switch).

I've replaced every "Portal" occurrences found on these templates by ":Category". Easy. But it doesn't work as expected. Please try a few pages: "On the wiki" -> "Random Page". The titlebox still displays the Portals everywhere. From time to time, the lil' picture on the right DO lead to the category (quite rare).

Now take a random page again, and null-edit it (edit a page and save without changing anything). Now it works... somehow (it links to "Cateory:RG series" (red link) instead of the proper "Category:RG models" for instance) and we have to null-edit EVERY single page :/

I'm lost. I just want the Titlebox to keep the same layout, using Categories instead of Portals but I'm still missing something. Help plz.

(it's a trial-and-error process, if categories are no better here than portals I will give up, but I'd like to try first).

As I am building out Portal:2013 I'm beginning to wonder if it makes sense to add a bit more granular categorizations within the series groups. For example, within RG series would it make sense to break out the models in terms of "line", i.e. J Custom, Prestige, Premium, Iron Label, Standard, GIO? As I look at the page there are 65 models under the RG series banner, plus 5 more under "RG Iron Label" (which I've separated out since that line was new for 2013) and that doesn't even include the GIO RGs. As it is they're all displayed as one big block and while I've sorted them basically in order of model number, I'm not sure the presentation is very useful.

I don't really know what this additional sorting would look like or exactly how it would be implemented. I'm pretty sure I don't want separate labels/ links for each category in the table of contents, but some way to break up the various lines visually would be nice, I think. Maybe just a sub-head of some sort for the various lines?

Of course, the RG series is so much larger than the other series that it presents a bit of a special case, so we need to consider how the categories would look for smaller series which may only have 1 or two models in each line.

I also thought about adding small images for the different series similar to the "NEW!" image, but I think that would end up looking cluttered and I like how you can pick out the new models at a glance as it is.

Any ideas? Do you even think this is worth worrying about?

Hi, I've brought a few minor changes to improve the navigation over this wiki.

• MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation (i.e. the wikia top-menu):

No more drop-down menus (they were confusing), twitter/facebook links removed (both were unused for years). Please look at the Talk page for all details.

• MediaWiki:Wikia.css:

Everybody now can see the categories at the bottom of the page, even the unregistered users. So far we were the only wiki on Earth not displaying theses categories, it is fixed now. Let me know if something is wrong, it can be easily reverted. --KainTGC (talk) 20:35, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

This is a copy-paste from the old forum (original thread here), let's now use this fresh new forum instead ;)