Flamingo_Workbench page to be renamed?

[chrisb]

Who are you?

Sorry if I offended you, this was not my intention. And I agree that the name may not be what you would search for; and yes the name may sound silly, but if I ever needed such tools, I sure wouldn't care about the name of the workbench.

However, I cannot see ottopus, the author of Dodo workbench participating here. And I think he has all the rights to give a name of his choice to his workbench, even if it is a funny one.

There are more examples of such naming schemes known in science, at least in mathematics, such as Hall's marriage theorem, which was probably never used by any matchmaker or the "Ruin and Recreate" algorithm, which hopefully never ruined anybody using it.

So I vote for leaving this to the author and lets get a smile on the face when having understood why it is named this way.

[Kunda1]

I vote for augmenting the name Legit Name/Alternate Name and then explaining further in the byline of the description what the workbench does.

[FBXL5]

Sorry if I offended you

No worries, I'm not offended at all.

So I vote for leaving this to the author and lets get a smile on the face when having understood why it is named this way.

If the name is kept, then its representation in the wiki should get a bit of attention, at least. A few more pictures showing what could be achieved with the tools of this workbench would be nice.

[david69]

IMO, the name is not so important, as previously said Chennes, as long as we know what is the purpose of this worbench, it is fine. And it is the case. Check here:
https://wiki.freecadweb.org/External_wo ... s#Overview

we have here a minimum description for the Addon manager.

my original post was: Dodo supercedes Flamingo, why the name of the page is Flamingo and not Dodo. From the link above, let's say I am a dummy user, I click on Dodo and I come to a Flamingo page (all right, we have some explanations but I would prefer the reverse thus my post).

If I go further, why do we maintain Flamingo? Python2 & Qt4 are behind us since the intro of V0.19.

[Roy_043]

If I go further, why do we maintain Flamingo?

IMO there is an even bigger question (discussion) here: Why do we document external workbenches in the FreeCAD Wiki?

There are many parts of the Wiki dealing with the default workbenches and the core of FreeCAD that require work and we have limited human resources. Documenting many external workbenches will mean that less attention can be given to those parts. I know that FreeCAD is a FOSS project and everybody has their own priorities and that this also applies to the Wiki, so it will be hard to come up with a reasonable policy here. But unless more Wiki volunteers step up to the plate, we may need one.

[chrisb]

Documenting many external workbenches will mean that less attention can be given to those parts.

I guess that's true only to a limited extent. I contribute to the wiki if I want to document something. And if addons are documented somewhere else, then I would do it somewhere else. This argument doesn't hold for translations though.

I appreciate to see some workbenches in the wiki, one of the most prominent examples is Curves workbench, which has become sort of a "default addon", but I agree that the distinction is difficult.

[Roy_043]

I contribute to the wiki if I want to document something.

Of course. And in the case of your 'Sketcher Lecture' you already choose a different platform. Which is perfectly fine. As I have already said: everybody has their own priorities.

But the fact that we are having this discussion at all does point to problems with the maintainability of the Wiki. We would not have this discussion if the documentation of the Dodo WB were completely up-to-date, or if that documentation did not exist.