User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No singing!

lol @ the trains don't sing! Phgao 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD of Sony Ericsson W660i

I removed the PROD tag you added as the article had already been PRODded once by me and was contested. I am considering taking it to AFD for lack of notability; there is another similar debate occurring for another Sony Ericsson article. Camaron1 | Chris 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) In fact I will create an AFD for the article later today. Camaron1 | Chris 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

74181

Hi. I'm curious why you put the prod template on 74181. If the article needs references and cats, fine, that's a perfectly legitimate critisism of the article. But do you really think it should be deleted? This was one of the most ground-breaking chip designs of its time, and led directly to the design of some of the most commercially important computers of the 1970's. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable[citation needed]. If you can reference your essay and reduce the peacock words, it would make a good addition to the 7400 series article. I've prodded it because it's completely unreferenced, and content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Original research is not welcomed here. -- Mikeblas 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the discussion where such consensus was obtained. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It'll take a while to find, since Wikipedia has such poor searching. But it took place around the same time as an AFD for one of the CMOS 4000-series chips. Perhaps we'll find it faster if you help in the search. -- Mikeblas 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to help search, but I don't know what I'm searching for. Still, my guess is there was consensus along the lines of, Individual chips of the 7400 series are not inherently notable enough to deserve an article about them. If that's the case, then I agree with it. It would be silly to create 7401 and 7402 and so on because most of those simply aren't exciting by themselves. There's only so much one can say about a hex inverter. But, something like the 74181 stands out as noteworthy. Yes, I agree that the article needs references. But, let's not confuse insufficiently referenced article with non-notable topic -- RoySmith (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You're searching for the discussion about the notability of individual integrated circuits -- it's what you asked for above, so I'm surprised to hear that you don't know what you're looking for. I don't think there's any confusion about notability and references. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see you've found the right link, but I'm afraid that doesn't really help your case. I read the whole AFD discussion and it seems to me that the biggest concern of most people was copyvio. In fact, the consensus, The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about, was written by you and I don't see a whole lot in the rest of the discussion to support that. It seems disingenuous to cite your own opinion as a consensus which must be followed in another discussion. But, even if we get past that and look at the consensus as you wrote it, it basicly says, Being a member of the 7400 family does not make you notable. That's not that same as, There are no notable members of the 7400 family. I agree with you that not all 74xx chips are notable in their own right, but some are. And the 74181 is one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's the right link. I think I wrote above that the consensus conversation was about that same time as that AFD, not that the AFD was the consensus conversation. At the time, the individual chip articles were largely copy-and-paste from some manufacturer data sheets, which are protected by copyright, and that's why copyvio comes up in that AFD. If you think the 74181 is notable, that's great -- let's talk about why you thikn it's notable, so I can come to understand your opinion. Accusing me of being disingenuous is inappropriate, and off-topic. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the 'right link', or whatever links you're talking about that discuss notability. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the article. I read your user page and understand that you have concerns about articles about non-notable subjects, and articles that contain no references. I agree with the reference concern, that could have been addressed by adding an appropriate tag to the article. I disagree with your concern regarding non-notability, a) the 74181 is historically significant, more so than some long-standing articles, b) the article already has more edit history than some articles that have been on WP for months, c) Wikipedia is not paper, d) do you understand that the 74181 is not just another quad NAND gate? 74s181 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the 74181 is; I've used it in my own designs. The notability of the product is not established, and that other articles exist is not relevant. Indeed, I added a {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, but in my experience this is hardly an effective way of getting material referenced here. -- Mikeblas 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like what you really want is for references to be added, but you don't have faith that {{unreferenced}} will have the desired effect so you've brought it to AFD to force the references to get added? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Even if references are added, I don't think the subject of the article is notable. 74s181 has made no valid argument; a) is an assertion backed by nothing more than otherstuff; b) is about edit count, and edit count doesn't make an article notable; c) is carries no weight as WP:N overrdies WP:PAPER; and d) is an irrelevant personal attack. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now there are references. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
a) The 74181 is at least as notable as the 4004 and 8008, and much more notable than the TMS9900, CDP1802.
d) was not meant as a personal attack. Based on your statement "By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable..." I was questioning whether you had the knowledge to recognize that the 74181 was something substantially different from other 7400-series chips. But since you've "...used it in [your] own designs", it really surprises me that you would think it non-notable. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What is it about this product that makes you think it is notable? I'm also interested to learn what basis you use for comparing notability. Is the 74181 less notable than the 8080? Is the 8086 more notable than the 8080? Is the 68000 more notable than the 74181? How about the 68030? You've made plenty of assertions about your belief that it is notable, but have done absolutely nothing to substantiate those assertions--or even explain them. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now there is a reference that states notability. My opinion? Maybe less notable than 8080 and 680x0, but notable because it inspired the 4004 microprocessor, in that sense it is in the ancestral tree of the 8008, 8080, 8086, 80286, 80386, and Pentium, despite its warts the most popular CPU architecture of all time. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 4004 is notable because it is arguably the first microprocessor. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 8008 is notable because it is the first 8 bit microprocessor. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 8080 is notable because it is the microprocessor used in the first commodity-style computer, the Altair 8800, with the S-100 bus. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 680x0 is notable because it was used in the Lisa and Mac, first commercially successful GUI platform, also early Cisco routers. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 8086 is notable because it is the architecture of the IBM PC, really the 8088 chip, but it is the 8086 architecture. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 1802 is notable because its regular architecture and instruction set made it possible to write programs directly in machine code, without an assembler. Also for its use in satellites and space probes. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • TMS9900 also had an interesting architecture for the time, was a personal favorite of mine. Not sure why it is otherwise notable but the article is there and I would support keeping it. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't think it is interesting that the DG NOVA and the DEC PDP-11, the two major 16 bit minicomputers, bitter rivals, both used the same ALU? And that the VAX used the same ALU? 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
When I get time, or if someone else has time, a section will be added illustrating how the 74181 directly inspired the microprocessor or CPU on a chip. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist. What we're trying to determine is if it's notable or not. What reference do you have that states notability? -- Mikeblas 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist." Are you the only electronic hobbyist that looks at Wikipedia? Don't you think it might be interesting to other electronic hobbyists? Or is electronics history one of the topics that is excluded from Wikipedia? Is there a list of excluded topics somewhere that I haven't seen? And like I said above, I'd like to see a link to the discussion about notability that you referred to. 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to admit that in your zeal to maintain the purity of Wikipedia you were perhaps a bit hasty in this case? 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
My interest level -- and the interest level of other Wikipedians, in fact -- has no bearing on the part being considered notable in Wikipedia's guidelines. I wasn't hasty at all; listing the article for AfD to get consensus on it for this specific case was precisely the right thing to do. -- Mikeblas 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you didn't provide a reference, I tried to figure out why nominating 74181 for deletion the same day it was created was "...precisely the right thing to do." This is what I found. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Notability - General notability guideline I can see that the article has some weaknesses. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also learned that your response was absolutely not "...precisely the right thing to do." From Notability - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
  • Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
  • Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
  • If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
Bottom line, we need to find a reliable source that says the 74181 is historically significant, and you need to allow time for us to do this. Otherwise, maybe you are referring to some other policy, if so, please identify the policy under which immediately deleting 74181 is "...precisely the right thing to do." 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion would make more sense at talk:74181 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/74181. I'd like to copy it to one of these locations and continue the discussion there. Is that ok? Which would you prefer? 74s181 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to miss the 5 day deadline, so I've copied this discussion to the AfD page. 74s181 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's odd -- why not just link to it? But, whatever sparks your plugs. -- Mikeblas 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On talk page practices and ephemeralities

Hey. I've been thinking a bit about organizing my fast-growing talk page. Like your great big tag says, I too like to keep discussions unfragmented - but do so by copypasting what I'm replying to into that reply, optimally resulting in a copy of the conversation on the talk pages of both party. It's much easier for outsiders to follow than normal fragmented ones, and easier for the other party to see that I've replied. On the other hand, people may carry on the conversation on their talk pages instead of mine (though in practice, this very rarely happens.) The effort involved is trivial. Can I ask if you see any other clear advantages or disadvantages between our methods?

While this isn't why I came to you for - I was on vandalism patrol - I took a look at your AfD/PROD list.
I've been monitoring a series of unfortunate events from the sidelines. (I would've tried to get involved, but suffered what's best termed a temporary health failure and left alone.) There's this new editor who's unfailingly polite and conservative in his language, and also possibly the most keen tagger/AfD'er/delete-voter that I've seen in the past four years. He nominated Angelfire for deletion at one point as vanity spam - that's Angelfire as in the ridiculously large web host, that an editor found nine references for with a NYTimes.com search - and has been applying the same degree of research, discretion and good faith assumption to RPGs. What I'm getting to here is that the RPG wikiproject (which I don't belong to) is stretched to the breaking point, and in no condition to bring their expertise (the one that WP:N recommends consulting, amusingly) to bear in their obscure field, nor to decide how to adapt to larger-scale deletions to best cover their material in the future. Their attempts to form practices for dealing with notability issues were put on hold due to too many demands to deal with notability issues. I ask that you leave role-playing game - related articles be for the time being. It's not an urgent issue, and more pressure at the present time can't help our most valuable resource, the community of volunteers.

Now hit me. I think I'm becoming a politician. --Kizor 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the "new" editor Kizor is refering to is me, and he is trying to discredit my proposed deletion of RPG articles by using a selective example. Note that Angelfire, an article to which no editor (including Kizor) has contributed a single reference to since my AfD, is still in pretty bad shape. If Kizor has issues with my edits, I would prefer that he bring it forward to the village pump for discussion. --Gavin Collins 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch your back

Just want to give you a heads-up-some knucklehead on 4chan has decided you hate Dungeons and Dragons and is trying to incite raids against your userpage. I think he's just angry about all your prods and AfD nominations related to D&D articles and isn't smart enough to find a more constructive way to make his complaints known.72.241.182.49 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They're making a habit of these things over there. I erected the usual semi-protection, and you may wish to amuse yourself by imagining the sounds of incoming vandals ricocheting off it. Strengthen or dismiss it at your leisure, of course. --Kizor 10:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, and the heads up! -- Mikeblas 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical.

Basically, as adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:

is useful as the deletions are listed in onel place. This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:

{{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small>.

This way we can all keep a tab on game-deletions.--Gavin Collins 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)