Talk:GUID Partition Table

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GUID Partition Table article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Computing: Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

New version created by Scorpiuss

I've created a new version of the GPT page. The fundamentals are all there. Could use a chart of the things represented at each bit position. Microsoft's got a nice one on the external link indicated (which, by the way, is a great source).

-Scorpiuss, Aug 26 2005, 13:25 GMT

EFI System partition GUID contradiction

The GUID for an EFISys partition under the Partition Entries section is different than the one in the list of GUIDs. On the MS page linked at the bottom, the one given in the Partition Entries section is given.

-Scorpiuss

Exhaustive GUIDs table

This was discussed back in 2014, but nothing was done as a result of that conversation. So I'll reopen it: This crazy table of every partition type GUID doesn't belong in the article, or the encyclopedia. As was correctly pointed out by thumperward at the time, WP:NOTMANUAL. (WP:NOTDATABASE would also apply.) Dsimic, the only other participant in the discussion at the time, countered with WP:ITSUSEFUL, which as that link will show is equally irrelevant to the question of whether something belongs in the encyclopedia. All encyclopedic content should be useful to someone, but not all content useful to someone is encyclopedic.

I tend to be in agreement that the table(s!) detailing Windows support for GPT are also unnecessary, and could be replaced with a couple of sentences of prose, but I'll pick my battles. FeRDNYC (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just over ten years to the day. You're entirely correct that this has always been against our content guidelines, from well before that discussion even happened. Removing this should be completely uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLDly excised, obliterating nearly 2/3 of the article source length. #NothingOfValueWasLost FeRDNYC (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted since this has never been formally discussed, or voted upon. I've now spent an hour searching for this information as I was absolutely sure it was on WP and guess what? Speedily deleted. No other resource on the net contains it. What a freaking mess. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be more suitable to Wikibooks than Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can move it into a separate article and maintain it this way. Again these GUIDs are hugely important for a ton of people. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

Consensus discussions are not votes; Wikipedia does not make decisions by polling. The removal was discussed, both 10 years ago and in this thread, with no arguments made for inclusion. (See next point.) Changes explicitly do not have to be preceded by an RFC, that's the entire point of WP:BOLD. Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. – WP:EDITCON
That being said, given that you disagree with the removal, consensus is not established and your revert is good and proper. The discussion must now continue here.
I have to reiterate that WP:ITSUSEFUL, the claim made by Dsimic 10 years ago and by you here, is not an argument that establishes the encyclopedic nature of a given piece of information. To keep the list, there needs to be some explanation of why the list is appropriately encyclopedic content, fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTDATABASE, and other policies are pretty strong indicators that it's not. Any arguments for its inclusion would need to explain why those policies aren't applicable to this list.

I'm not at all familiar with Wikibooks policies or practices, but AnonMoos' suggestion to move it there sounds promising to me. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter where it exists, it absolutely must. I'm OK with moving it to a separate article but then it's possible the article itself will be deleted on the same grounds. If it can exist on a different WP project, that's fine with me. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology consistency

LBA 1 is referred to as the "GPT header" in one section, and later as the "Partition table header". It may be beneficial to clarify this terminology shift, or use the same terms in both sections. 99.165.47.46 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, considering GPT stands for "GUID Partition Table", has the terminology really shifted? FeRDNYC (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]