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.
To put it frankly, the "portal concept" is good (= excellent) for one thing: having image'd lists of guitar models. This Paul Gilbert's one, the JEM, and your 2012/2013 Portals of course.
I like it all the more than there's no huge, unreadable lists of links, like all the other portals.
That's said, we also have the good old articles/pages with "readable text and images" (Paul Gilbert series, and the categories to sort out and hierarchize the whole content of the wiki (Category:Paul Gilbert models). With your Portal there's nothing more to add :)
If the portal concept evolves to become a nice image-list of every series (save the 6895 RG models!), I'm all for it.
But I would really, really like to keep the categories as the main way of navigation, after all they're entirely based upon that purpose, it's part of the wiki concept itself. Navigating through portals means nothing, as we have to make links by ourselves, parent/sub hierarchy by ourselves... and it's a waste of time since categories already do this herselves ;)
TL;DR:
First off, I concede that there is a LOT of work to be done on the vast bulk of the portals to bring them up to a usable level. However, I would encourage you to not think of Portals somehow supplanting categories. As I see it there's plenty of room for both as they serve two different purposes.
Let's use the analogy of a book: A non-fiction book generally contains both a Table of Contents and an Index. The (fully implemented) Portals would be the Table of Contents. Portals would be the primary way of navigating the structure of the site. Categories would be the Index. They'll always be an immensely useful way to quickly find the more granular information. Both are useful and having one without the other leaves a gap.
I believe that trying to stretch categories into being the primary navigational structure of the site forces them into a role for which they are not particularly well suited.
I don't anticipate that this debate is one that's going to be resolved soon. I think the best way forward is for you to focus on organizing and improving the categories while I will focus on building out the portals. Once we've got a better idea of what both of our visions look like in a more fully realized form, I would hope that we can find some roles for each to play and can mold the site navigation to work with what we have.
It might be a while until we get there, but I think we'll eventually build something we both can get behind. Either that, or we each get on an airplane and meet in the middle (New York?) and settle this once and for all by the fairest possible method: an arm-wrestling competition.
I've spent some time lately building out Portal:SA series. This page offers a number of different ways to view the SA models (by line, by year, by pickup configuration).
I've built this is a sort of "proof of concept" to share my vision of what the portals could eventually become. As such, I'd love to get feedback on the design. What works? What doesn't? Does this sort of page add value for you? Please let me know either here or on the Portal talk page. Thanks!
Impressive, really! My favorite feature is the TOC that let us pick and choose the criteria we prefer, that's a great idea. I also prefer this kind of sorting, form the most expensive models to the more affordable ones, it looks more logic (to me). Maybe I would go even further, sorting them with the SA9xx coming first (most expensive) followed by the SA3xx (mid-level) then SA1xx (entry-level). I took random numbers but you got the idea. Still the page is really great!
The SA series as a proof of concept for the Portals was also a nice choice, because I really like the SA's :) uh oh no I mean, because there is a decent number of models but the list is not overwhelming, making this series the perfect candidate.
That said, one sentence caught my attention: The first SA models were introduced in 2000 as a moderately priced entry point into the S series. Honestly I don't know if the SA can be seen as an "entry-level" S series: sure the earlier SA models were cheaper than their S counterparts, but to me it's more of a whole new concept (body shape, synchro tremolo instead of the regular floyd-like, and later the HSS config) rather than a price distinction. But I can't say this sentence is right or wrong. To me the SA series is "a musical chameleon" (as the Ibanez marketing goes), and this motto perfectly sum up the SA spirit ;)
KainTGC wrote: Impressive, really! My favorite feature is the TOC that let us pick and choose the criteria we prefer, that's a great idea. I also prefer this kind of sorting, form the most expensive models to the more affordable ones, it looks more logic (to me). Maybe I would go even further, sorting them with the SA9xx coming first (most expensive) followed by the SA3xx (mid-level) then SA1xx (entry-level). I took random numbers but you got the idea. Still the page is really great!
I considered doing the sorting as you recommended, but I just wasn't sure it was worth the effort. I can see the logic in it if we're going to be ordering the lines from most expensive to least, it makes some sense to order the models within them from high to low as well. I guess it's something we should settle on before the task of implementing it is overwhelming. Frankly, I don't have strong feelings either way.
KainTGC wrote: The SA series as a proof of concept for the Portals was also a nice choice, because I really like the SA's :) uh oh no I mean, because there is a decent number of models but the list is not overwhelming, making this series the perfect candidate.
That's basically why I started there. Besides the fact that we share an affinity for the line, it's also of a good size that it can be representative of many of the other lines while still being manageable.
KainTGC wrote: That said, one sentence caught my attention: The first SA models were introduced in 2000 as a moderately priced entry point into the S series. Honestly I don't know if the SA can be seen as an "entry-level" S series: sure the earlier SA models were cheaper than their S counterparts, but to me it's more of a whole new concept (body shape, synchro tremolo instead of the regular floyd-like, and later the HSS config) rather than a price distinction. But I can't say this sentence is right or wrong. To me the SA series is "a musical chameleon" (as the Ibanez marketing goes), and this motto perfectly sum up the SA spirit ;)
I do believe that the original impetus for the SA series probably had price-point as at least one consideration — it's got to be a bit more expensive to make the double-arched S body than the flat-back SA body. The Ibanez Electric Guitar Book notes that the SA and GSA series are "budget takes on the S series". Also, the SAT tremolos are almost certainly less expensive to produce than the more complex double-locking Floyd Rose style Edge series.
At some point I mean to revisit and expand the SA series article and I'll try to do a better job of fleshing all this out and providing sources.