Looks like a pretty bold and refreshing update to the traditional RG "slab". Preserves the classic outline but adds "edge" - by removing it! I'm curious where it was published - or is it a leaked ad/mock-up?
--NikonMike 01:14, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Might be a good idea to start with some sourcing here :D Getting to it. BramTalk!
08:15, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
Template updated[]
Hi Deejayk, just in case you look at this page: I tried to use your new speclist/sandbox template with the new features, string gauge & tuning and... I like it :) So far I was adding these informations in the main article (like the M8M).
Now just a note: for a very common, regular string gauge like here, the 10-46, I only write .10 .46 I think it's more readable, more understandable since everybody in the world use it in their everyday's life. No need for the whole 6 strings gauge (I think). I was also tempted to simply write 10-46 but I made an effort :p
Also I didn't add the "Price" spec. I don't know how to put it. I feel really uncomfortable seeing prices on this wiki. Can't explain why exactly, it's more of a feeling than anything else. Not to mention the MSRP & SMAP, and the many currencies don't make this field sexy at all :D
Just my 2 cts, different sensibilities, etc. --KainTGC (talk) 18:04, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% in terms of the string gauges — listing just the first and last is very common and should be well understood by most users. I think the full list might make sense for 7- and 8-string although we could probably just list first and last there, too. I don't love how it wraps to the next line on TAM100. I think I would go with ".10–.46", but could be pursuaded if another shorthand is more widely used.
- In a similar vein, the tuning is also something that we might only want to consider using when it's something non-standard. It doesn't add a lot of value to list "E/A/D/G/B/E" for nearly every model.
- In terms of price, I agree the implementation is pretty rough. And your points about the different currencies is something I considered as well. Another issue is that the price might change (perhaps significantly?) through the years on models with long production runs. I sort of like it for two reasons: it seems that a lot of people use this wiki to try to evaluate the value of a guitar and the original price might be helpful for them. Also, it provides a general idea of which model in a particular series was the higher-end models (e.g. is the JEM7V, JEM77 or the JEM777 the top of the line?).
- In terms of implementing it, please don't replace the {{Speclist}} template with {{Speclist/sandbox}}, although it's okay to add the parameters and play with the sandbox template to check it out. Once we reach a consensus on the value of these additions, I'll merge the changes into the regular Speclist template so they'll cascade throughout.
- By the way, nice try in hiding your comments here. Did you think you could catch me slippin'? \m/ Deejayk (talk) 18:45, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree that it doesn't make sense to add string gauges to all 6-strings models. Except here, this RG is a 26.5" scale-long, and the 10-46 is slightly higher than the "regular" 09-42 widely used on all 6-strings Ibanez' ;) yea I admit, it's a little bit tricky here since 10-46 is very common even with normal scale guitars.
- As for prices, I guess a good trial-and-errors process will help us to make it great. I'm still mitigated keeping it or not, but you mark a point saying that some people DO need this information. So why not making a separate table for this? Like, just after the spec table. It would be easier to manage euro/dollar/yen, MSRP and SMAP, inflation maybe (a price in the 80's can't be compared to a current one, esp. the JEMs that have been produced for more than 70 years at least (jk)... Just a mere idea.
- I was curious to test these new strings/tuning fields but you're right, better not overuse this template/sandbox right now. I won't use it again until it's finalized once for good, still I'm totally convinced by the concept :) --KainTGC (talk) 20:11, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
- If you're on board with the strings and tuning parameters, I'll go ahead and add those to the main template now. There's no real harm in it even if someone else comes along an convinces us that they're unnecessary. Update: strings and tuning are now live on {{Speclist}}.
- I like your ideas regarding changing the way we present the price parameters. I'll leave that in the sandbox for now and hold off on adding it to the main template. I'll let that one percolate and revisit it in the future. Deejayk (talk) 20:19, April 22, 2016 (UTC)