Wiki status

Wiki redux

Glad to see the wiki being revived.

The key to a successful Wiki is standards for the entries and a consistent format for the entries.  The other huge task is to keep the Wiki info current, however since most of this info will be more or less static, that should be a minimal issue.  The big challenge in this area for the MRH Wiki admins will be arbitrating the changes that will be made to the contents, and documenting source material.

Looking forward to contributing content again.

I'm glad to see this as well,

I'm glad to see this as well, and the link from the goodies menu should make it more discoverable.

The topic I'm currently fixated on due to the phase of layout planning I'm in is prototype industries.  Looks like there isn't a section for that yet?  Both general information (e.g. most/all coal mines ship coal in hoppers) and specific industries (Bob's coal mine in Dusty, WV loads ships about 20 hoppers out on CSX a day, empties arrive on the xx track... etc).  I'm sure lots of us are familiar with one or two specific industries and could contribute info.

Totally understand about the necessary investment both money and time.  Yet another reason to subscribe to running extra (which I have to admit I still haven't done).

Industry planning

How about a new category in planning called Industry Planning? Just now added it ... but it needs fleshed out, of course.

Industry info

The OpSig already has a database on this with 10's of thousands of entries.  The problem with really specific industry information is its perishable.  Industries start up, they move around, they shut down, they change traffic patterns.  For example in another thread I posted plans for a lumber mill complex in Laquin, PA.  There really was a short window of operation for the railroad, from about 1900 to about 1915.  Before that is wasn't built and after that it was gone, out of business, along with the industries.  In 1980 there was an oil boom in Texas and every place that had a spur was unloading oil pipe.  Fast forward a few years and the boom went bust and all those places shut down, fast forward a few more years and some of the ex-pipe yards were now being used to unload auto racks.  From studying Sanborn Insurance maps, about every 20 years there is a fairly decent turnover in the owners of industries.  If Acme Industries was at a location in 1950, if you go back to 1930 or 1970 it will probably have a different name, be a different business or nor even be there.

Industry info is good, just realize its only good for the target time it was observed.

Little known fact  :  Acme Industries was the "Amazon" of the 1960's and 1970's.  Just watch any Roadrunner cartoon and you'll see you can order anything you want from Acme.  Acme is always my default industry.  It pretty much went out of business in the 1980's because of the tendency for it products to explode or cause serious bodily injury.

That's great

That's great -- the MRH wiki should comment on what it is, how to use it, and link to it.

How about a new category in

 Excellent!  I'll try to collect and organize some of my notes and add some stuff there as time permits.

I'm familiar with that, it's basically a list of one liners.  Doesn't really tell you anything about how the industry operates.  It is good for a reference when setting up off layout car routing origins and destinations, but not terribly helpful for designing an on layout industry and how you'll operate it.

Yup, many industries change significantly over time.  For example the Osram plant in Wellsboro PA used to be a Corning Glass plant, and in addition to lightbulb "envelopes", they used to make christmas balls.  And both would be shipped out in big cardboard boxes with no packaging - cheaper to accept some breakage than try to package for none.  It was all loaded into boxcars spotted at the loading docks on the side away from the sand and storage tracks.  But at some point they started shipping by truck - no more warehouse track operation.  And then a couple years ago they shut the plant down entirely.

Anyway, point is, it's useful to know all the gory details you can get your hands on when you're planning.

Standards

And this points to the need for standards and organization in the entries, even some sort of standards for tags to search on.  If its a handful of industries, its easy, when you get up over several thousand entries, the inconsistencies in the way things are entered and the way people search mean that stuff will be missed in a search or else buried so far down in the search results that it will be missed.

Agreed Dave.  How to get

Agreed Dave.  How to get there?  Plan ahead?  Or plow ahead and shuffle entries as better ways of organizing it all become apparent?

As one of the initial contributors...some background

Hi all,

As one of the initial contributors, I put up some stuff in the Animations area to see if I was barking up the right tree. The Animations area was one of the earlier ones to be developed because it was a "relatively small area" of the hobby that could be used as a "test-bed" for how the wiki process might work. Please go have a look and bring any comments (good or bad) back to this thread. 

What was added was a few bones to the skeleton plan. Then for some evaluation of whether we were heading the "right" (if there is any "correct" direction that suits everyone) direction. Yes there is more stuff sill to go in around the existing framework within the topic of Animations. The aim here isn't to replicate what was posted in the forums, but to distil the essence of it down into compact, good information that would be useful as a reference to both novice and advanced-skilled railroad model hobbyists.

My understanding of the aim of this wiki "game" is that it was to collect some of the better information about stuff that appeared in the forums to enable it to be found easier and not get lost in the years of stuff already in the forum. Links to stuff elsewhere on the web could also be useful - If someone has already done the leg work, run with it rather than reinventing the wheel. This eventually makes finding "good information" easier in a more manageable manner than trying to find that information buried deep in a possibly unrelated topic somewhere in the forum.

DaveH's comments on consistency of entries are valid. Yes each section has a volunteer administrator to "run" that section in an editorial capacity (style fixes, adding new sub-heading web-pages etc). And each section has a discussion area where contributors can discuss their contributions with regard formatting/level of information detail, additional headings required etc. before and as their contributions go up on the wiki. This helps in keeping a consistent "feel" in each section and across the wiki as a whole.   

If you want to assist in what might become a really useful online railroad modelling reference site, then you will need to register. It doesn't cost anything to register and you don't have to register if you only "want to look". But the wiki isn't going to write itself if everyone "only looks".  There are also no medals being handed out for contributing (you don't get to see your name or hit counts against a topic, if any of that matters to you). However if you feel that you feel that you have something to contribute to the wiki and the hobby as a whole, then please register, but only if you are serious about becoming a contributor to the wiki. 

As the information in there grows, (and it is really only JUST getting started) what will be be needed to make the wiki useful, is when a modeller asks a question about YYY, in our reply we respond with  something like "..and there is some more useful information in the MRH-wki in the ZZZ area (post a link to the named area like I did above), then this wiki for railroad modellers might turn into something really useful over time.  

For your consideration,       

Wiki plans

Our plan is to have a tiny "staff" of wiki admins who are paid a token fee each month to set the formatting guildelines and to maintain MRH wiki consistency. Any big questions, these admins can take up with the MRH staff, but basically, these wiki admins are deputized by MRH to keep the wiki running smoothly as content gets added.

That has yet to be implemented because we've been awaiting some funds to pay this cadre of admins and to also pay for some other resources to lighten the load of MRH staff to give them the time to work with the wiki admins regularly.

If Running Extra does well, then we'll finally have the funds to do this.

In the meantime....

Quite true

Nope, go ahead and add more content to the Wiki, just be aware you may be asked to edit the format some later once we get the wiki admin team kicked off.

Stuff in the forum

I still don't understand the whole "links to stuff in the forum" thing.  If you want to find stuff in the forum, search the forum, you can do that now. 

I see using links to forum threads as problematic.  If there are specific wiki pages that are authoritative sources on a subject, and all the knowledge on that subject will be collected in that location, then a link makes sense.  Any updates will be made to the linked page so the link will always be fresh. 

On the other hand if you have links to other forum threads then you will have multiple links, since there might be a dozen threads on the same subject.  Plus if somebody adds a new thread on that topic, somebody will have to go to the relevant wiki pages and add/update the links or else that information will be lost.  Unless of course, you search the forum in addition, which will mean you will get all the other stuff too.

The other drawback of linking to the forum is that the information isn't vetted or condensed.  If I am looking for information on coal dealers, there could be a thread on that, but it could be 100 or more pages long.  The user would have to wade through all that to find what they are looking for, then decide what information is valid (not everything on the internet is true, surprise!).

Forum links vs searching

The big problem with search is you have to KNOW what to search for. Topical organization allows you to discover topics of interest by browsing.

Search is not the end-all, be-all because you need to know in advance what you're looking for.

As an analogy, let's assume you know you have a car that won't start -- so you know you have a problem but that's all you know. You go to a mechanic and he doesn't look at your car -- all he tells you is to go down the street to the car parts place and search for a part to fix it.

But what do you search for? You know you have a problem, you can describe what's wrong, but you have no idea what to search for to fix it!

That's why search is NOT the right answer at least half the time. Even when you KNOW what to search for (you think) -- search can sometimes be an exasperating process.

Here's another example -- I needed something I could melt low melting point metals in on the stove, but I wasn't exactly sure what would work, so rather than search Amazon, I went to the cooking section of Walmart and browsed the store. I found some possible solutions, but wondered what else might be available online. Armed with specific product types and names from my "topical browsing", I now could go search on Amazon and find exactly what I needed.

Bottom line, let's not oversell searching. A topical structure you can browse is also a very powerful way to organize content.

Searching

I agree that searching is a bit of an art form and many times its not that information isn't available, its just a person doesn't know how to describe it in such a way that the search engine can bring them useable results.

But I'm not sure linking to the threads in the forum is any more helpful.

For example in the current Wiki, in the Operation section, under this part of the tree is :

Selecting "How would the prototype select a loco?" takes you to a thread on the forum :https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/29348.  That thread has 7 pages.  Seven pages with 70 entries.  Is it really going to be helpful to wade through 70 entries to try and find the answer to the question?  Wouldn't a one or two page article in the Wiki be better than 70 pages of often contradictory and not necessarily linear discussion?

We won't even go into why that link is in that place in the wiki to begin with.

The advantage to making the content separate pages is that you can link from any directory or place on another page to a content page without duplicating content.  If there is one content page on how railroads select engines for a train, then you could put a link to that page in this location, in the section on yards in the section on engine facilities, in the section on locomotives.

On the other hand, " The Car Cycle" notation takes you to a content page in the Wiki which has a very concise and specific description of the car cycle.  Any place the "car cycle" is mentioned, it could be linked to that page.

(Note:   I made the car cycle link active but I don't know if it will work because the wiki may still be behind a development firewall)

The car cycle wiki page link

The car cycle wiki page link does work.

I’d bet that as time goes on and more people take the time to contribute to the wiki, things which start as links for expedience (a pointer to a thread is better than nothing) will get reworked into more concise pages.

Exactly

Exactly.

I can also see a bibliography on wiki pages pointing back to threads that relate to the material. That starts to build a nice topical cross reference to some of the best MRH forum / blog threads.

First time

Maybe.

Having managed a Wiki previously, I will tell you that having to go back and rework a Wiki is a painful process.  Plus if something is in the wrong place and you move it to the right place, it breaks ALL the links to that subject, both in the Wiki, in the documents that refer to it and any favorites that may have been saved by the users.

It is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better to do it right once, the first time.   Not trying to be difficult, its just I have driven (been dragged) down that road and it wasn't smooth.

Big difference

Big difference between reworking a Wiki and reworking one MRH forum reference into a more complete article.

Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither is a wiki. Reworking a Wiki link now and then is part of the building process. And yes, it does take effort. That’s why we’re planning some deputized admins (more than one) who get paid a little something for their trouble. It does take some effort to do, and sometimes more than a little effort.

Of course you try to do it right the first time, but like anything, once you see it actually in place, you may think of something better and need to make mods. Welcome to the way all websites work.

Part of the edit process..

Dear Dave, Joe and all,

There is nothing stopping you (anyone) as a wiki contributor, (after registering), adding some relevant text before those links to forum postings in the wiki inside any topic or subtopic.  

To help weed out the irrelevant stuff in the forum posting links, with some additional effort, you can target the relevant individual forum posting(s) as a direct link rather than just a single link to the forum topic.

If an individual posting has the exact information (quite often an individual posting will not have all the relevant information), then that's what the "edit process" inside the wki is about as the information builds. It allows the modification of existing links to more targeted links. Distilling the information down to it essence with that "lead in stuff", then with the "meat" backing it up as sub-pages, links, photos, methods etc If someone wants to go digging deeper, then this is part of how this wiki might develop and might be used by hobbyists. 

Also remember that there may be more than one way to do something - the various options need to be there in a wiki, with perhaps some reasoning of why you might chose one way over another - eg modelling trees - which tree type would you like? deciduous vs evergreen, which season? conifers vs oaks vs gums vs generic "any tree will do"? There are perhaps a dozen ways of doing stuff. In a wiki each method can be fleshed out with relevant sub-pages etc  inside the wiki and not scattered across multiple posts in different forum topics. 

I don't have any magic answers, merely suggestions for your consideration about making this wiki really useful. If I and others are prepared to spend our time and effort adding to the wiki, then perhaps some feedback here on the stuff already up might be advantageous. Any feedback (good or bad) will help to minimise any "wrong turns" early on and thus help to reduce the amount of any rework later.  

Over to you all.  

Structure

Just to be clear.  My comments have NOTHING to do with content.  They are related to structure and organization.

Re Wiki Structure

Hi Dave and all,

Your comments re structure of the wiki and how it hangs together are valid, Please have a look at what s already up there from a structural viewpoint, and bring your comments back here.

I like a lot of others who have already contributed would like to know that perhaps we have the 'right" skeleton, even if all the bones aren't there or are perhaps in a place that doesn't make logical sense. Your 'logical sense" however may differ from my and perhaps other's "logical sense" of how the skeleton hangs together. So let's have that discussion and come up with an agreed way forward. 

To help set up the "logical sense" of the wiki's framework, perhaps it might be worth a revisit oi this thread to help work out where that wiki skeleton came from?

Also remember that model trains is a world wide hobby, and not just North American centric. There are may different signalling and operating schemes world wide with vastly different looking rolling stock and even coupling systems in both the real and model world. This wiki has to be able to handle those variations if it is to be useful worldwide.

Remember what is at there at present is a very basic "first cut" at the direction the wiki might grow. Nothing has grown that big yet that it is "set in concrete". 

I can only comment on the approach I took on the bit I worked on. My and some others contributor's approach was to put some stuff up and ask for feedback. Frankly the feedback has been underwhelming (and it's one of the many reasons I haven't done much more. There have been no crowds of  "attaboy" comments or many loud howls of anguish about not doing it right - just deathly silence. Hence my previous request for feedback    

Current wiki

Almost all the topics start out with a number outline list.  Looks really nice, but is horrible to maintain because what happens if somebody decides that the subjects are "out of order" or that there needs to be a new topic inserted or topics combined?  That means all the topics and all the outlines in all the sub-topics need to be renumbered.  It can also break a bunch of links if its done wrong. A bullet list is easier to maintain.  Each content page would have its own outline numbering unique to that page.

The moderators will need to decide when content should be separated into a new page.  Should a discussion on proscenium arch style modules be in the same page as a discussion on modular layouts or should they each be their own page?

The benefits of making 50 pages with small pieces of content as opposed to 5 pages with 10 bullet points on them is if you want to rearrange the order of the content or where it appears in a menu, you can just move links around on a page, but the links remain viable.  Many pages make it easier to flow things because its allows a many to one organization.  If the topics are separate pages, the admins might decide that "proscenium arch" belongs in scenery design and "modules" belong in benchwork design, OR  that "proscenium arch" belongs in scenery and benchwork design while "modules" only belong in benchwork design.  With separate pages, that type of reorganization is simple.

Plus many pages can make navigation easier.  If a user wants to go find out about a proscenium arch they can go (or a link can take them) directly to that page, if its like it is now, they go (or a link takes them) to a benchwork design page and then have to scroll down in a screen or two to find the section on proscenium arches.

There isn't consistency on format and labeling between pages. The Planning page has a Header 3 format for "Various Topics" with links to forum threads, while the Lighting page has a paragraph format for "Links and further reading" with links to forum threads. On some pages those links are just on the page with no heading.

Some content is just links to external websites.  Should external websites be in a place on the page or is that acceptable as content?  Should each page have a "Related Forum Topics" heading, an "External Links" heading

I would suggest that "general" be about the wiki itself.  A tutorial on how to use it, how to navigate, what to do if you think something is wrong, what to do if you want to contribute, who the moderators are, what the vetting process for changes is, behavior policy, etc.

The admins should see what other functions are available, such as tables, columns, "twistys" (Bullet list and you click on an item and it expands hidden content, way cool for instructional material).