FANDOM


WelcomeEdit

Hi, welcome to Ibanez Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Template:Infobox series/sandbox page. If you need help, read through our help pages or contact a local admin. If there are no active admins here, stop by Community Central and check out our forums.

Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia. Lastly, check out the Wikia Video Library, where you can find premium licensed videos to add to the wiki.

All of these links are a great way to start exploring Wikia.

Happy editing, Brandon Rhea @fandom (help forum | blog) 14:21, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

About ModelsEdit

Hi there, thank you for your change on my prototype-full-list page :)

I didn't make a separate paragraph for the GRGM models since they were merged into the GIO serie in the catalog, but it doesn't hurt so no problem. However I noticed the official name for these mini-guitars are "miKro" (please note the capital K), but I don't know if the capital letter was there back in the days or not. edit: I realize the "Mikro" category already exists (and it will be a pain in the a.. to edit everything, maybe we could just let things as is). And thks again for your HSH HH HSS categories :) --KainTGC (talk) 22:42, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the Mikro vs. miKro thing has been bugging me as well. It was pretty consistently represented on this wiki as "Mikro" when I was looking for things, so that's what I stuck with. I'm happy to entertain the idea of changing it to "miKro", but you're absolutely right about that being a PITA undertaking, and I'm not really sure who would notice or care (besides the two of us).
As for the GIO series and Mikro series sub-heads I added to your catalog articles, feel free to remove them if you don't like them. Those two series are a bit odd in that they're generally sub-series of another series, although you can also think of other series as subseries of them. That's why in the 2014 catalog I made Mikro (miKro?) a header with sub-heads for RG and Mikro (since the miKro series were not all GIO models that year). Other than 2014, miKro really fits more as a sub-series of GIO (and RG).
I like your idea of just inputting the entire catalogs into an article. There are a LOT of recent models missing from the wiki and that makes for an easy way to get started on creating articles. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone come along and complain about the format though, but for now I think they'll prove very useful. Take care! Deejayk (talk) 23:06, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with the "MiKro" sub-category on the 2014 page, plus it makes things easier to understand for future edits. Let's give up the idea of renaming the capital letter -as you said, who cares :)
I joined the wiki in 2013 (left-handed guitars edit and bla-bla) but even at that time the wiki was pretty off. I don't know if the admin is still here or not but people are affraid/lazy to add new pages so yes, there're tons of work to keep it up to date. My little lists are just a small piece of the puzzle, still I hope it may help other wiki enthousiasts ;) (oh and sorry for my bad english, it's quite not fluent at all but I try my best). --KainTGC (talk) 00:08, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
It definitely appears as though the founder of the wiki (Brambram) has been absent for basically four years now, and I'm not seeing anyone else who's stepped up and even attempted to fill the void. It's almost like the site's been preserved in amber since 2011. Other than some edit patrolling and an occasional addition, not much has been happening that I can see. It would be nice to change that, and I appreciate your efforts to that end. I'm focusing my efforts for the moment on some cleanup efforts (along with the pickup configuration tagging), but I'd be happy to lend a hand to work on adding some missing models. By the way, your English is just fine...I had no idea it wasn't your native tongue. I'm in the US...where do you live? Deejayk (talk) 14:20, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Yes you're right when you say the wiki is trapped under ice for years now. I'm no admin, just a humble wiki user and without our leader (Brambram) it makes things harder. Maybe we can try to insuflate life again to this wiki, like using the forum a little more? Problem is, the forum is a wiki-based one, not as simple as a standard forum where you simply click "add message/reply" and voila. But it costs nothing to try :)
Btw I'm French (oh and in case you wonder, I used the USA catalog because the wiki aims at a large, worldwide audience, so to me it feels more appropriate. My 2 cts. --KainTGC (talk) 15:18, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

SAx60Edit

Hehehe, God bless the SSH/HSS! You asked me about the SA160L I own, so I can give you a short review. It's a very light guitar, approx. 3Kg only. Body is Mahogamy with a flamed maple top (like... Gibson! lolwut). Pickups, well, humbucker is of little value BUT it works very well with single coils PU (there's some volume difference from neck to bridge but it rests bearable). The tremolo is not a floyd, it's not a standard strat either, to be honest it's a pure replica of a Wilkinson vs100. Dive bombs are out-of-the-scope but I find it quite reliable for a moderate use (a la jeff beck). The neck is one of the fatter one I could find on an Ibanez guitar. Definitely not a Wizard 2, it's thicker, with a very comfortable profile, I like it a lot. So yes, I'm quite fond of this guitar, but because it's not my main sword and I only use it from time to time to have fun (neck single coil fiesta, or soft tremolo/surf rock for exemple). And also because it costs nothing so it helps x) --KainTGC (talk) 00:32, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review! The thing that appeals to me (beyond the pickup configuration) with the SA series is the thin arched/top design. I really like the even thinner S bodies, but alas they're basically all HH and HSH configuration. I also really dig the looks of the flamed maple top. Deejayk (talk) 14:27, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
"Cheapy but Soundy" perfectly reflects the soul of this SA160. On a side-note, Ibanez depicts her as a "musical chameleon", and for sure it's a very versatile guitar. It won't go to the far extreme aka brutal death metal but she's got a lot under the feet. Give it a try if you can. --KainTGC (talk) 15:18, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

Vacation Edit

How lucky you are, enjoy your week out of this wiki-hell! Rest assured that you'll have to correct all the mess-up I'll bring to your dear categories <3 Have fun and take care ;) --KainTGC (talk) 23:04, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Date format Edit

Hi, sorry to bother you with tiny, insignificant details but it's about the date formatting. I noticed you're very found of this typing: 2007–2010 (which is exactly what Bram used in the first place). Personally I cannot write this middle-bar (or what is it called) and with me dates looks like this: 2007-2010 (bar is shorter). Maybe it's because of my french-azerty keyboard (^^), or maybe you have some special magic keys on your US one, but the more I edit the existing pages, the more I realize the short-bar is widely used everywhere, I may not be the only one. Just my 2 cts ;) --KainTGC (talk) 00:39, April 9, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that n-dash (the name of that longer dash I use) is a relic of the time I've spent editing Wikipedia; its a well enforced standard over there for things like date ranges. I'm not going to be (too) upset if it's not universally adopted on this site, but I've taken to trying to use it on any edits I make. It's a bit of a pain to use, since it's not mapped to a keyboard button. If you want to use it you can either copy-and-paste it from another article or type – (ampersand ndash semicolon, with no spaces) which is the ASCII code. Deejayk (talk) 04:56, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
n-dsah you say, it's good to put a name on it. If it is a Wikipedia standard widely used for date range I'll stick to it. In fact I found two ASCII shortcuts, ALT0150 – and ALT0151 — ; can you please tell me the 1st one is the good one? I used it abusively this afternoon while editing pages (and I confirm that the simple "substraction dash" - is all over the pages, 90% at least).
onoes I see a Full line EU catalog 2016 coming ahead :runsforcover: (nice work)! --KainTGC (talk) 20:55, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
It'll the the shorter one (ALT0150) –. The longer one is an em-dash. Yeah, I think there's almost zero use of the n-dash on this site, so it'll be a while before we get there. I just happened across a link to that EU catalog last night as I was looking for something else, so figured I'd share it. Haven't seen a full 2016 catalog on the Ibanez site yet. Looking at it, I'm mildly annoyed that the SA360QM seems to be EU and Japan only, although I really prefer the flame maple to the quilted maple look anyway. Will keep searching for a SA360FM, but may dip my toes in the SA series waters with a dirt cheap GSA60 I came across recently. We'll see if it's still available when I get back from my vacation. Happy editing! It's looking good. Deejayk (talk) 23:41, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
I don't see many ~FM in my region either (except on the second-hand market). Now I don't know about the SA360QM in the US, but it seems easily accessible in EU. Here we've got a large, massive european, germany-based online shop called Thomann. I'm not used to post commercial links but you can have a look (they sell worldwide though, not just EU):
http://www.thomann.de/fr/ibanez_sa360qm_trb.htm
At least you can DL the pictures to gaze and dream at it during your holidays ;) --KainTGC (talk) 00:01, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

New categories useful? Edit

Hi there! Glad to see you're back, hope you enjoyed your little vacation :)

Well I just noticed you're adding a new "made in XXX" category but I wonder if this time, things aren't going too far. The SHH/HH/HSH pickups categorizing was really useful, but I see no purpose for the "made in" one. When it's time to find a new guitar to buy, nobody's gonna look for it's provenance in the first place. Problem is, the more categories we add, the more the wiki becomes a pile of nonsense/irrelevant contents. This 100% similar problem occurred years ago when I was working on a MMORPG wiki (GGftw - Trickster online not to name it) and finally we decided to delete ALL but 2 or 3 fundamental categories to keep things simple.

I also read your opinion about 98.255.xxx;xxx IP, it's a good discussion but I fear we won't get a reply on /her talk page. Copy/paste it to the forum maybe?

Sorry if I sound like a jerk (it's not the intent believe me, it's "constructive feedback"), all the more than your work since yesterday to improve the navigation is hard to undertake and is really appreciated (by me at least) :) --KainTGC (talk) 13:53, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I guess my thing with categories is that for most users I feel they should be more or less invisible. They don't even appear on the page for most casual users of the wiki. So unless you're actually using them, they should be basically out-of-sight/ out-of mind. That's probably down to my so American "more is more" mentality. ;)
As for the usefulness of the latest Category:Guitar models by country of manufacture categories, I hear you and I agree that their utility is probably less than the pickup categories for most, but it seems that the country of origin does provide a bit of a hierarchy of Ibanez guitars to some degree — the "Made in Japan" models are generally the top of the line, followed by the "Made in Korea" models, followed by the Indonesian and Chinese models. I see a lot of used guitars listings that prominently mention "MIJ" (made in Japan) or "MIK", so clearly for some people the country of origin is noteworthy.
All that said, I hadn't really considered the clutter these categories might be adding. I wasn't aware of a situation where categories caused confusion for users, so I'd be interested to learn more about why that was so.
Frankly, I was using these "country of origin" categories as a test-case of leveraging the {{Speclist}} template to add categorization, which actually works quite well. This approach also makes is very simple to ditch these categories if the consensus is that they're not useful and are simply clutter.
I'll go ahead follow your suggestion to open a broader discussion on the value of categorization and solicit input from the community before proceeding further.
By the way, the vacation was great — so nice to get away for a bit. Deejayk (talk) 14:43, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
I agree that categories are only seen/being useful for wiki editors so it's not a big deal. Problem is, when you freshly discover a new wiki and want to start editing things, first you look at what's already there to know how to adapt to this very wiki style. The "confusing part" does not apply to random viewers, but to all the people that may refrain from editing because things on this wiki are way too complex (here: too many categories for everything and nothing). Don't be afraid, the "worst" categories I have seen so far are the "Updated in 2009" or "New finish in 2009". Those are utterly useless - I don't even bother to add them when I edit/create pages because I find this content irrelevant, nobody's gonna look for a guitar based on a criteria "New finish this specific year" ;)
You have (good) arguments for the "Made In" category (I agree with this hierarchy Japan->Korea>Rest of the world, but to be honest it's the modern point-of-view: back in the days (90's), Japan was nothing but "regular production" while Korea was "affordable worthless crap with shitty trem", and no other country produced Ibanez' guitars).
It's not a problem to edit and re-edit pages to add all these categories, but when you create a page from scratch it's really painful: This week I've been working on the 2012 line, the more time-consuming is not to write the fancy/flavor text of the guitar, nor her spec table, but the category management is, by far. Usually I spend 30~45 mn overall for ONE single guitar page-from-scratch (abusing the copy/paste!). Now I understand why nobody edits the wiki anymore, way too painful if you want to do it good ;)
Sorry for the TL;DR but one should take a wiki for what it is: a full resource on a very specific subject, with a navigation greatly improved thanks to the categories. Still, a wiki is NOT a database (very common mistake on the internet), browsing a wiki with a plethora of criteria is not the way it should be in the 1st place (even if it can be, to some extent).
The best solution in such situations would be to have the sysop/admin to tell us what to do/avoid. Too bad he's unreachable. And good luck with my bad english, I'm sorry it's a bit long --KainTGC (talk) 17:07, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
Added discussion Forum:Wiki categorization - how much is too much?. Feel free to continue the discussion there. As to your point about the time it takes to create a page, I definitely feel you there. However, in the case of these "country" categories, it leverages the existing speclist, so it really shouldn't add overhead (except in the relatively uncommon case where a guitar is made in more than one country). If you have any ideas that would simplify the article creation process I'd be interested in hearing them. Thanks! Deejayk (talk) 00:00, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

Links Edit

Hello, I'd like to talk about a little something that is bothering me theses days: I noticed on your most recent edits that sometimes, you are adding links to guitar parts inside the guitar main article (link "Wizard-7" instead of plain-text "Wizard-7" for example). I don't know why but to me, it is not the best place to put links about parts: first, because these links are already provided in the speclist table and second, the only links we've put so far in the guitars main article concern similar/twin models only. Like: A similar model is also available, the RG470.

Talking example, the XH300: no matter if the links are red or gray, it is just not the proper place for them -I think ;) Well, it's not a matter of life & death either and it's nothing compared to your cleanup/updates that are really great! --KainTGC (talk) 02:38, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

If the links bother you, then I'll desist. I just am not sure why we discuss particular part names without linking to articles. Ideally all such named part should (eventually?) have articles. Overall I'm not a big huge of the list of selected specs in the article text, since the speclist contains all the same information. I guess it can be useful to point out unusual attributes but in practice it generally seems like just an attempt to pad out the text (speaking here of articles presumably mostly written by the site's departed leader).  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 13:08, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Well you slightly made me change my mind :) It's true that the whole process of adding "Features include xxx body bla-bla neck something-bridge" is not interesting at all most of the time, like you said. But the model is so freaking normal that there is nothing more to say about it. (Is that what "padding out" means, sorry for my primal english)?
As you say, when a feature is REALLY new (like the Edge-Zero II in 2011 for example), I agree to add a link to it in the main article text -as long as we stay "reasonable" and keep this Edge-Zero II link to models introduced in 2011 only, to emphasis the novelty. After all, it makes the articles much more interesting to read. --KainTGC (talk) 14:02, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable middle ground. And I do understand the difficulty of coming up with a few sentences to describe a model without making it just a list of specs. It's not like we want to (or need to) spend even more time polishing each and every article when there are still so many models left to be documented. I think it does add value to highlight specs that truly differentiate a model in the text, but I don't really see a lot of value in pointing out that a guitar has a maple neck, for example.
Maybe we need to find (or create) some article that we can point to as the Platonic ideal. To me, the more interesting articles contain information and links to other related models or perhaps the models that replaced or were replaced by the model in question. Again, though, I know that information isn't always readily available and takes time to track down. One thing I've done at times is to take a minimalist approach to creating a new article, providing just one or two fairly rote sentences along with the speclist and then adding a {{stub}} template. That feels like a cop out, but maybe its no worse than fluffing up an article with a list of specs.  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 14:26, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, what's the point saying "this RGXXX has a basswood body"... knowing that it applies to 90% of the RG series. But I'm not a poet, I'm bad/lazy at writing things, I must admit that listing a few specs helps me a lot :)
Like you I really like the links giving an overture, like "this model is also available 7-string" or "discontinued-re-introduced in 20XX", "flame maple top for this model". I'm sure to spend one hour of full research for one single model when I do this, but that's the most exiting part of our work as well (to me, at least).
If you have a few pages "of your own" that differ from the minimalist approach used so far, please share (like the MTM1_(2006–2011) and the MTM1 (2015–2016) that I made recently and which now looks more informative, thanks to your recent edit). --KainTGC (talk) 18:07, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what the "right" balance is between too little exposition and too much. I feel like for a typical model it would have one or two sort of introductory sentences — the first just basically saying its an Ibanez guitar and perhaps the series its part of and the year it was introduced and then (where appropriate) a second going into a bit more detail (e.g. signature models, Prestige line, etc.) Then maybe another sentence or two in the first paragraph describing any unique characteristics or specs. After that it really depends on the model and how much research one wants to put into the connections. That said anything more than a couple of paragraphs for most models is probably overkill/ fluff. I'll keep my eyes open for a page that I feel strikes a good balance.  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:47, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Ok not to write a full novel for every model we add. What Braham did back in the days and what we're doing nowadays seems ok to me: if there is something interesting/special to mention about the guitar then we add a sentence/paragraph for it, else we keep the usual approach that everybody is used to. --KainTGC (talk) 01:07, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. And I'll cut down on the parts links in the article text.  \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:41, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Adoption Edit

Hi. I’ve given you admin and bureaucrat rights on this community as you requested. You now have the tools you need to clean up, customize and maintain the wiki.

Check out your Admin Dashboard, which can by found by clicking "Admin" on the bottom toolbar -- it has links to all your new tools. Please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with your new (old) wiki! -- Wendy (talk@fandom 04:15, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.