Talk:Apex

Apex ticket

Anyone know why an apex ticket is named as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.127.48 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 July 2007

Are you referring to an Advance-Purchase Excursion fare? Dicklyon 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AGEIA item

AGEIA Adaptive Physics EXtensions (APEX) citations http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=AGEIA+Adaptive+Physical+EXtensions+(APEX)+Development+Platform&spell=1 --Ramu50 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to have a disambig item added for that, get the mention of it, with reference to the source, into an article first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First Wikipedia never stated that dismaiguation require any sources or references, because it is not an article. Second of all I have edit a lot disambiguation that contains red links an so far no one seems to have a problem with it, but you, therefore your action what you think is right is WP:OR.

Examples

• Bean_(disambiguation) (section Slang / jargon)
• GDC
• ICE
• Pan

--Ramu50 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review my recent fixes to those. Thanks for pointing out the problem, but it was mostly not redlinks, just lots of non dab items (no support in linked articles). Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages are meant to point users to different articles that share the same/similar name(s). Including something w/o an article makes no sense whatsoever. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And in turns your reply doesn't support anything of whatever thing you are trying to say or support. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, please read WP:MOSDAB. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB never stated that that article that haven't been created must be eliminated so stop trying to make up your own synthesis which isn't true. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, multiple editors with rather more experience than you, have called into question your edits. Does that not raise any flags for you, that perhaps you are doing something incorrectly? We have plainly demonstrated the reason for keeping the item in question off this page, and you obstinately refuse to cooperate with consensus. Why is that? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, if you need help reading WP:MOSDAB, let us know, and we can point out specific sections or quotes to help you understand. We're not against you here, just trying to keep the content and style aligned with policies and conventions. Ask for help if you need it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To hell with you with your idoicracy look down on the other people, still rv end of story if you don't want to discuss or can't given any evidence on the side of the story. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to my offer for help, you offer a "to hell with you"? I don't see what your issue is, but if you can't be civil (see WP:CIVIL), we're not likely to resolve it. Hence my final warning on your talk page. Please discuss it here, or leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept your lack of your input of not caring of Wikipedia, give the evidence or don't. In the case of WP:MOSDAB

The APEX I provide for Aegia is very likely to written, its just currently I am not sure how to write it, since I have little experience. The article also have a very good potential of being included in the following template, which I am working on. Go look at the template history yourself.

• Template:FOSS
• Template:Nvidia

In terms of notability guidelines it also meet the criteria since it is a direct competitors against ATI Havok physics developement which is known to the majority. Both ATI and Nvidia have develop free utilities / libraries so you there should be absoustely no reason why it can't be included.

ATI has even made a special for Developement Libraries and so does Nvidia. Nvidia didn't included, because it is copyrighted under Standford University BSD License. http://developer.amd.com/gpu/rendermonkey/Pages/default.aspx. Also the Brook+ already has an article BrookGPU in Wikipedia and by removing, it shows that your a fascists against free trade competition which is already violating the law, since I assume that your already knows the laws of copyright infrigement, false accusing charges.

Extra References Notability

• TG Daily
• Softpedia both are Globally known if you go look at their ranking in Alexa.

Red links
Shortcut:
MOS:DABRL 
A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation  
page when another article also includes that red link. There is no need to brainstorm all  
occurrences of the page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be 
written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if another 
article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the 
left side of the page to see if any other articles use the red link. See Help:What links here 
for more information.

--Ramu50 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had added an item with a redlink, then we could have checked whether that link also appeared elsewhere and was reasonable. But you added an item with no link at all; there's no case in which that is within the prescribed style, as far as I'm aware. Since you've found that section, you should know what needs to be done at a minimum. By the way, I checked your two links above, and found nothing about APEX or Adaptive Physics. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is an Ageia article, but it doesn't mention APEX. Is it the same as PhysX? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

APEX is not mention by majority of the news reporting companies, because they don't the insider news right now, if they publish false information they could get sued easily, since ATI and Nvidia is already unhappy about the price fixing settlement issues which cost them 2 million. On the APEX topic, my understanding thus far is as follows

Nvidia bought Aegia (they thought about implanting Aegia Instructions Sets onto the GPU itself), however, since ATI is dominating at a rate that is threatening too much of their companies' division especially in chipsets and graphic cards. Implanting GPU would be very hard since the entire microarchitecture would change.

Also since GPU is heavily dependent on the development of parallel event-driven architecture since RIVA TNT. Reason

• First they have no Fab, and since EVGA has left Nvidia, no one want to partner up with Nvidia, if any companies did partner up, it almost a gurantee privitizations.
• Reason 2, virtually all GPU since RIVA TNT is heavily dpendant on event-driven architecture...............BUT there is no university that teaches that courses, besides University of Illinois

Note: Note that before ATI dominate Nvidia, Nvidia appointed Illnois as center of excellence and invested a great deal of money for course development, but since it is delaying too much and ATI new FirePro is really putting the pressure to the limit, Nvidia has no choice but to let Aegia develop their own thing.

Summary

They decide to let Aegia develop its own platform (aka APEX, which is probably a library (meaning an extensions like browser plug-ins...etc. or an application framework). --Ramu50 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, thanks for trying to explain. But try to understand disambig page policy, too. You need an article to link to, or the minimum, you need an article that contains a link to a non-existent article. If you have sourced information to add, you can add it to Ageia and link to there, or make a new article. But if all you have in insider info, then give it up; that's not what wikipedia is for. And you're now on the verge of violating the WP:3RR, so please don't keep this up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Strucuture

For your information Carl when Aegia APEX was discuss you didn't continue contribute any more your own opinion at the talk page, so removing Aegia APEX is violating against WP:CONS and Manual Style of Guidelines violation.

In terms of structure both of your versions has no strucutre. They are just a bunch of random list that doesn't have any type user friendliness (by that mean I mean chronological, alphabetically, categorize by topics or whichever methods you choose). This is both of your last warning. If you guys don't like my style of editing, than edit in a way that has a "strucutre." Because the current version you guys keep on insists is not following the dismabiguation guidelines. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We can address the structure better if we settle the basics first. I'm sure it can be improved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

moved from User: Talk page

I reverted again. I didn't check what other items he may have added in his re-org, but if any remain that are not valid disambig items, please do remove them. And I requested admin intervention for the disruption after final warning. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Idk if he added them, they may well have been pre-existing, but one was a town and another was a cartoon (or some kind of) character. I removed them; we might as well clean the page while we're doing this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should we be removing articles that already exists, that is a bias action and you have no right to remove that. This is Wikipedia not your own website, you follow the Wikipedia policy, NOT keeping only what you want. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is removing articles. Removing inappropriate items from disambiguation pages is a normal maintenance activity that many editors work on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How is a computing item inappropriate. Load of crap. By the info I only provided for Ageia Item, because you ask what it was and I thought you don't understand much about computers. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The topic is not what's inappropriate. What's inappropriate is an item in a disambig page that doesn't link to an article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just the matter of sections

Leaving aside anything else, is there consensus that the list here is long enough that it's worth using level-2 headers to separate the various categories and not just bold? This is in line with the MoS's view on long lists and gives us a TOC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like a situation where a tocright would help, to clue the reader that there may be more than is initially visible. I would wouldn't go to a large number or multiple levels of fine-grained sections. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I dislike tocright unless the number of sections is of a truly unmanageable length (20+). I agree that fine sectioning is probably fine though. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if you do find it, you won't be able to revert all the disambiguation since I have already seen more than 30+ disambiguation using it already. They are more users in the WikiProjects Disambiguation promoting it rather against it.

Disambiguation like GDC I don't intend on keeping all the 20 entries, but I think they are some entries that already exists in Wikipedia but the "GDC" acronym / abbreviations is informal and rarely used. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)