Keycap mount nomenclature

[webwit]

Yeah whatever. I'm done with this discussion.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

So was I, before you started screaming at me ;-)

[Soarer]

In forum discussions at least, it doesn't make any sense to encourage use of the terms U and Z mount, especially since they have no basis other than some rather arbitrary SP codes. Simply using "Cherry mount" and "Alps mount" is sufficient, and far more likely to be understood. They're also more compatible with search tools than a single letter or number.

For the wiki, I appreciate that a more specific term might be desirable, yet, as you point out, it would be cumbersome. Whatever terms are used, it would make sense to have "Cherry mount" and "Alps mount" redirect to them, so perhaps simply using them directly is the least worst option? My thinking is that apart from those types, there are very few other switch types that have keycaps compatible across multiple types; most keycaps are specific to one switch type. Therefore, since we probably don't need to name many mount types (independently of their switches), highly specific names are not a necessity.

It certainly makes sense to use the most common example of switch with a given mount to name the mount. So even if we discover that "Cherry mount" was first used on some obscure switch back in the 70s, and even if we also discovered that Cherry deliberately copied it, it would still make sense to call it "Cherry mount" rather than "Progenitor mount".

Then there's the question of MX/MY/ML, and whether it works to say "Cherry MX mount", or "Cherry MX/MY mount". I don't think it does, but I expect some debate on that point! My reasoning is based on the fact that "Cherry MX/MY mount" is certainly getting too cumbersome (it would be simpler to say that MY uses the "Cherry MX mount" on the MY page). Then, I think "Cherry MX mount" is superfluous, since that's what most people would take "Cherry mount" to mean, and it makes little sense to use a longer term than is necessary. As for ML, the only discussions I've ever seen regarding the mount have been simply "are the keycaps MX compatible?" -- "No.". It seems pointless to even name the mount for such cases.

[bhtooefr]

Suggestion, here.

Use Template embeds for referencing any disputed terms in articles. Then, as more accurate terms are found, the template can be changed, which automatically updates every article.

[Soarer]

My objection in general to "Alps-compatible" or "Cherry-compatible" is that some switches on the wiki will be Alps-incompatible-Alps and Cherry-incompatible-Cherry. "Cherry MX compatible" works, but since "Alps CM" is already blatantly wrong, we can't have a new term that builds on another wrong one. By the same token, I'm sticking with Alps CM for now until we have something better. Someone mentioned "Alps leaf spring", but I just read that that's also used for plate spring by some people. I've asked Alps twice now for the official product range name, but they don't answer e-mails. Not even a polite "no longer on our records, sorry", just silence.

If you really are that bothered, change the wiki, and I'll use whatever terms you want. I just don't change things randomly without reason.

Sure, I understand that objection (Cherry-incompatible-Cherry etc), but really, isn't it the least-worst option? If there's no correct way to name them, we are left to either invent names ourselves, or simply adopt what is already in common use (and of course explain its limitations in the wiki). Of those two, I'd say the common use term would be preferable.

"Cherry mount" and "Alps mount" are clean and simple terms, and also handily avoids the question of what one might qualify Alps with (CM, leaf spring...). They both apply to current switches (even though they aren't Alps at all now), with the only real ambiguity being with regard to Cherry ML, so the fact that there were once Alps-incompatible-Alps is perhaps not as big an issue as you think.

[I'm imagining this as being framed with more emphasis at the beginning of the keycap mount page that mounts in most cases are particular to a single switch type, and so the named mounts for Cherry and Alps are exceptions to the rule].

Sure, if all of us can agree on some names, I don't mind doing the grunt work of patching them in. It's probably a good way for me to get started with wiki editing.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Dragging me back in. No fair! :P

[webwit]

Continuing with an erroneous fabrication is weird, it's an absolute nono, if you'd do that in research or journalism you get fired. It means the wiki or the book cannot be trusted. It's like a journalist who writes a book about an important person, gets the place of birth wrong at various places, gets this pointed out, and continues with the error, while attacking anyone who thinks it should simply be corrected, who are "absurd" and "shouting" while they are not. Maybe "someone" will fix it, right? It leaves one to wonder what else in the book is complete nonsense. This is why you cannot do that. If this all needs to be pointed out to you, there's something seriously wrong.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

There's a difference between an actual error, and whatever this is. If "Z mount" meant something else, that would be different — we would be abusing a term to mean something it doesn't. As it turns out, it means nothing at all. It functions essentially as a term we coined to refer to a specific mount. That's not what happened, but there's essentially no difference. Its only meaning is for our very specific purpose, for which the wiki is perfectly self-consistent. U mount actually does tie in with Signature Plastics codes; it's Z that doesn't work.

On the other hand, I've stamped out "Type I" and "Type II" Alps because the latter in particular is blatantly wrong. "Type II" Alps isn't a type of switch, and they are most certainly not all made by "XM", who don't exist (it's Xiang Min). Now that was a genuine error, because the information was provably false. I've kept Type III and Type IV because, despite the codes now being odd (where's I and II?), they do refer to specific switches, so far as I can tell. I also removed "XM" from the MiniTouch page owing to there being no evidence to support it and, at the time, evidence to the contrary, now reversed through actually contacting SIIG directly (SIIG really commission PC/AT keyboards in 2002!) So the switches could now be XM, but there's no proof.

You "shouting" is when I declared that I'd said everything I could — I'd made my arguments in favour of what I wanted, and didn't want to argue the same around in circles forever, and then you decided that a bitter ad hominem attack was in order.

I don't see U mount and Z mount as erroneous — they're not wrong, they're just not anyone else's codes, just ours. If we had actually stated their origin (i.e. Signature Plastics), that would be awkward (because then we'd be lying), but we didn't. The other thing to bear in mind is that this is not journalism — we're trying to make sense out of a subject that requires creating convention where there is none. We may never find out the part numbers or product names for most switches — we have to make it all up, so that we can write something.

Besides, you did give up at the suggestion that you might have to do something. Basically, if I won't do all the work, you certainly won't bother. I don't see you getting worked up about "Alps CM", and that IS provably false. "CM" means nothing. It's part of the product code of one or more unidentifiable switches, and we know that other switches in that family do not have "CM" in the name.

If this issue is so terrible, why haven't you ripped out every trace of "Alps CM" everywhere? That is genuinely erroneous, and provably so.

Without an excuse to attack me, you seem far less bothered.

With that said, I do recognise that there are valid arguments against "Z mount" and "U mount", but I am simply not satisfied with any alternatives sufficient to go through the hassle of replacing all the text. If someone else does that, I will abide by whatever terms are chosen. I won't have any choice! For now, "U mount" and "Z mount" are in the same camp as "Type III", "Type IV" and "Alps CM" — wrong, but I don't see an adequate alternative yet.

[webwit]

Wall of text about other stuff. Is this the game "Count the logical fallacies" ?

Let's recap this in a burglary case:

Judge: I find you guilty by factual evidence.
Burgler: But consider these other burglars. What do you have to say about them? You said nothing! Were they all caught? So you are a bad judge. Stock attacking me! Therefore it is all ok and I should go free, and I'll continue the burglary until I find something better.
Judge: ...

Same fallacies there. You should stick to the U mount/Z mount discussion and what we should use as replacements for what turned out to be errors, and use your logical fallacies on someone else. If it is any use, because you attack any suggestions while not giving any usable input, such as saying that calling a cross a cross is absurd. This gives me the notion that you are hell-bent to continue propagating the errors.

Basically, if I won't do all the work, you certainly won't bother.

Is this why you are attacking all suggestions for better terms? You are talking to the one person who has been cleaning up the wiki to an extend he has much more edits than you and claim he doesn't bother. How bright, and thank you. And this from the guy who in previous posts criticized other people for not cleaning up their own contributions and that you are not their janitor. Yet you expect exactly that from me and "juniors" when it comes to your contributions.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

There's more than one kind of error. Yes, U mount and Z mount were errors (in that Findecanor accidentally invented his own terms), but they don't contradict anything — they're not actual Signature Plastics terms. If you go back and re-read the list, there is no code "Z" or code "U" in their list anywhere.

From my perspective it was a mistake that yielded us unambiguous terms for two kinds of mount that are completely free of any misleading assumptions about products from Cherry and Alps that don't fit the pattern. "Type II (XM)" Alps contradicted actual facts, that Xiang Min did not make the switches, and in fact Type II switches aren't all the same product. "Z mount" doesn't contradict anything, and it's not false. It's simply not an industry term, in an industry that turns out not to have any term of its own anyway.

"Cross mount" is absurd because it's meaningless in this context. A cross does not have to be upright (i.e. arms at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°), nor does it have to have equal length arms. It says nothing about the arm lengths or widths. Nor (and this is where we have to be careful with U mount especially, cf Cherry M8) does it say anything about the height of the keycap stem it accepts. Describing a switch as "cross mount" just means that the keycap mount isn't square, rectangular, or something else (e.g. Hall effect, NMB). It's not useful for anything except dividing up switches for recognition.

Regarding burglars — I'm not using that as an excuse not to fix the problem. I'm just pointing out that you got all worked up over this originally, and decided to attack me over it, when it's actually a much smaller issue than larger ones you're already overlooking and ignoring. This has no bearing on whether the issue needs resolving, only your burning obsession to fix this one and nothing else, which is apparently somehow all my fault, when I didn't even originate the terms. All I did was actually make the effort to research their origins!

I cannot by definition "clean up my own contributions" when I never contributed Z mount and U mount. I can't "clean them up" to be inconsistent with pages that I didn't contribute, that clearly say that we call them "Z mount" and "U mount". I would be cleaning up someone else's pages. That's a wholly different matter entirely. My work is consistent with the wiki in this regard — I am maintaining a consistent convention. Should the convention change, then I would be obligated to change my work accordingly. (That said, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't clean up other pages—I do—but nothing I've said would obligate me to do so.)

In terms of "Is this why you are attacking all suggestions for better terms?" — don't forget that I stated that I'd said all I could. I didn't want to argue it any further. I may be right, I may be wrong. To be perfectly honest, there is no right or wrong here — there are pros and cons for any term. As the website owner, you're free to choose whatever you feel has the superior arguments in favour of it. I have no choice but to accept this decision. I simply stated my opposition to anything that would be ambiguous to anyone trying to learn this subject from scratch, especially considering how many switches are missing or not adequately covered. I felt that I'd made my position clear, and wanted to leave my arguments to stand, and let you decide between your views, mine, and anyone else who might post. I felt it senseless to repeat the same arguments over and over.

It was only then that you decided to attack me personally. After I'd made it clear that I'd said all I could.

[webwit]

I'm not the wikimaster, and I don't own it or make such decisions regarding the wiki, I'm just a fan of refactoring errors.

[bhtooefr]

I'll note that nobody owns any page. This isn't Riphack.

[Findecanor]

I suggest that we vote on what we should call them in the Deskthority Wiki. First have a round of nominations, and then a round of voting.
I nobody can give me a good reason not to, then I'll set it up in the Wiki Talk subforum tomorrow.

[bhtooefr]

However, the vote can and should be overridden if there's proof of a name for the damn things from the horse's mouth. (For instance, marketing material from Alps on advantages of their keycap mount.)

[Findecanor]

Agreed, but the name could always be changed again later.

[7bit]

What about plus-mount (Cherry MX) and negative minus-mount (ALPS)?

[webwit]

Nominate it when Findecanor starts a topic for it. A vote sounds good.