Talk:ARM big.LITTLE

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn).

Computing High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Not heterogeneous

Despite ARM describing big.LITTLE as 'heterogeneous multiprocessing', big.LITTLE is really a return to asymmetric multiprocessing as defined there, i.e. several processors that share the same instruction set architecture and can all run the same user code. Heterogeneous computing normally involves targeting code at more than one kind of processor, as opposed to processors of one kind with different performance characteristics. ("a heterogeneous computing platform consists of processors with different instruction set architectures (ISAs).")

--Streapadair (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need a source as ARM describe it as heterogeneous. Widefox; talk 15:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung's Press release uses the term "Heterogenous MultiProcessing(HMP)", for their big.LITTLE implementation in Exynos 5420.^[1] Heartinpiece (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Heterogeneous System Architecture / HSA Foundation User:ScotXW^t@lk 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (Press release) [Samsung Primes Exynos 5 Octa for ARM big.LITTLE Technology with Heterogeneous Multi-Processing Capability Samsung Primes Exynos 5 Octa for ARM big.LITTLE Technology with Heterogeneous Multi-Processing Capability]. {{cite press release}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

HMP mode

Details about big.LITTLE processor running in HMP mode - Linaro activating all 8 cores on Samsung Galaxy S4 [1] Widefox; talk 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title - Capitalisation

"big.LITTLE" is a trademark, and sources use this capitalisation. I consider this similar to eBay/iPod in Wikipedia:MOS/TM, so best left as is, which also preserves the humour/meaning of the case in it. Widefox; talk 11:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but hesitate to just change back to big.LITTLE. comp.arch (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be "ARM big.LITTLE" to be similar to all the other ARM related articles. Actually, this article should be merged into ARM architecture. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it separate:

It's a substantial topic in its own right. ARM is also a huge topic. It justifies WP:N etc. in isolation.
It's conceptually about cores, not just about ARM cores (even though it's ARM's invention).
We would obviously need to keep this content and a redirect under this name, even if we deleted the article as you suggest.

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the concept is generic, the article clearly says in the first sentence "big.LITTLE is a heterogeneous computing architecture developed by ARM Holdings", thus it's an "ARM" article, which means the title of the article should be "ARM big.LITTLE". Also, someone probably needs to add some summary text over in the ARM architecture article then add a "main" that points at this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia is primarily an English encyclopedia. Capitalization is not at the discretion of software companies: It is fundamental to the language. All caps titles are reserved for those that comprise acronyms. A title must include at least one uppercase, generlly at the start of the title; but all caps titling is reserved for acronyms. InternetMeme (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If context requires the title to be presented in its uppercased form, it can be enclosed in quotation marks: 'big.LITTLE'.

Apart from InternetMeme (talk · contribs), who keeps moving this without any discussion, does anyone favour such a page move? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many votes does the Manual of Style count for? As I said, it is immaterial what anyone's opinion on the matter is, as the rules have already been determined as part of English usage. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. InternetMeme (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work by voting, we work by consensus between editors. Consensus here appears to clearly favour big.LITTLE.

As to why it's a better name, then it's a combination of common use and clarity. big.LITTLE (and I hate to use the cliche, but iPod and iPhone) have substantial brand or product recognition attached to their name in that specific format. We are not here to comply with arbitrary policies for the sake of it, we're here to communicate knowledge to readers. We do not achieve that by confusing the names gratuitously. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, I still disagree with the naming. It should have "ARM" in the front of the name. The name of this article is not following the larger group of ARM articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that, as I think big.LITTLE is shorter, snappier and perfectly recognisable without ARM. Also a hint for good page names is how easy they are to embed as wls into other articles, unpiped or with the automatic pipe trick. Would we want to (especially from ARM articles) embed a link as big.LITTLE or as ARM big.LITTLE? That said though, I have no strong opinion on this and if you and Guy both think it's better with ARM in front, then go for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big.little, no. See http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/biglittleprocessing.php Big.LITTLE is better, but still no. ARM big.LITTLE is the correct name for this article. Again, see the first line of http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/biglittleprocessing.php --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you guys are getting off-topic here: You do realize that this entire debate is purely academic, as the Manual of Style mandates that the title be either "Big.Little" or "Big.little", right? Here is the link for clarity:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#All_caps

InternetMeme (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS doesn't mandate anything, it's a guideline. Try reading it, from the top, not just cherry-picking the bits that agree with your conclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've made it clear that you are either simply unaware of Wikipedia's style guidelines or just uninterested in following them. I'm not cherry-picking: It's a consistent theme throughout the section, and throughout Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules

Here are two articles for example: Dual Shock, Valve Corporation

Wikipedia has well established standards, and this includes reserving uppercase to one usage per word (whicn includes acronyms). If you want to diverge from the Manual of Style, you must provide convincing reasons to do so. This is a matter of literary professionalism, not a stylistic choice. I'm reverting the article; if you don't like the way Wikipedia works, then edit the article on something else, because at the moment, you're making Wikipedia look more like a hacker newsletter than an encyclopedia.

InternetMeme (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the correct way to deal with an article with non-English capitalization is to acknowledge it at the start, as in this article:

Big.Little (stylized as "big.LITTLE")

InternetMeme (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to re-emphasize the fact that this style of capitalization is fundamental to Wikipedia (and indeed English), here is the relevant section:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one:
- avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
- instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

And here are three articles from highly reputable publications to illustrate the style being in widespread use:

InternetMeme (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those discuss an upcoming technology that hasn't arrived. You could use the same method to find sources that support renaming our Windows XP article to Whistler or calling the Intel Atom CPU Silvermont.

I also note that, despite your repeated assertions that we must use standard English capitalization, you used InfoWorld instead of Infoworld, PCWorld instead of Pcworld, eWeek instead of Eweek, and signed your post with InternetMeme instead of Internetmeme. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new policy you might like to read: WP:EDITWAR Consensus here is very clearly against Big.little, yet you keep moving it regardless. If you want to argue this case, even against opinions here, then WP:RM is where to start. Unilateral edit-warring like this is not the way. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to bring that up, but if you keep doing it it will become an issue. I reverted the article back to the stylistic guidelines (It was originally called "Big.little"), and I have noticed your persistent edit-warring. Let's leave it at that. InternetMeme (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoS adherence is the default position. If you think there's a good reason to stray from MoS guidelines, then describe it here so we can discuss it. InternetMeme (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to Quit Renaming This Article during this discussion! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was originally called "Big.little""

No, it was originally called big.LITTLE It went through AfD as big.LITTLE. It has been renamed since, but never once as the result of a discussed page move, just by drive-by editors fixated on a single MOS guideline. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS is good reading too.[2] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The default position is to follow the MoS. So far you haven't provided any reason for this article not to. I still await your (or anyone's) reasoning. InternetMeme (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no point in reading any of the links you've provided so far, as they have no relevance to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Please stick to the topic. InternetMeme (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that when you say "please stick to the topic" you really mean "please stop posting arguments that contradict me". If, as you claim, consensus does not apply ("it is immaterial what anyone's opinion on the matter is, as the rules have already been determined as part of English usage"), please demonstrate this by successfully changing iPhone to Iphone. Try it, and you will find that WP:CONSENSUS does apply, just as it does here. And you might want to reconsider lecturing us on (your misinterpretation of) Wikipedia policy while blatantly and persistently violating our WP:EW policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that none of you know anything about journalism, or proper English. The iPhone doesn't need to be changed as it already has one capital letter per word. The problem is that you guys are all well-versed in technical fields, but all know nothing about journalism or language.

Also, I haven't presented any interpretations of MoS guidelines, I've simply posted the guidelines themselves. You also present an article that follows the guidelines to support your argument. Every part of your comment is faulty.

More to the point nobody has provided any reasons to stray from MoS guidelines, other than "all us guys who are uneducated in journalism think that the title should be this way". That is immaterial. You might all agree to rename the article "I LIKE CARROTS", but that's immaterial as well.

Please stop posting all this tangental stuff and provide your reasons for not following MoS guidelines.

InternetMeme (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're just sitting here agreeing with each other already. Your problem, as the editor wishing to change it, is to convince everyone else. Attacking everyone as too stupid to understand journalism is a great way to go about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please stop posting all this tangental stuff and provide your reasons for not following MoS guidelines. InternetMeme (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InternetMeme, nobody here but you thinks that explaining exactly why you are full of crap is tangental, so please stop trying to shut people up just because they don't agree with you (yes, that was a deliberate insult. If you wish to not be insulted, stop insulting other people). Again, the MoS doesn't say what you think it says; the second sentence clearly states "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Wikipedia:Consensus, on the other hand, is a policy with limited and well-defined exceptions (see WP:CONEXCEPT), none of which apply here.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." See the word "choose"? How do we choose? We choose through consensus, and the overwhelming consensus (everyone but you) is that either ARM big.LITTLE or big.LITTLE is the style already in use by sources. Performing a Google search on arm big.little (go ahead and use all lower case -- Google doesn't care) will confirm this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to present some kind of argument. I'm not offended by your insult, but it has caused me to lose faith in your skill as a calm and reasoned third party. You ask "how do we choose"? It says nothing about consensus. It says: "Choose the style that most closely resembles standard English".

On top of that, I did as you suggested, and haven't found any reputable sources that use incorrect capitalization. If you could link to some professional (non-bloglike) sources that would be reassuring. The only professional sources I found used correct English capitalization: InfoWorld. PCWorld, EE Times, eWeek

In regards to the other editors: You refuse to even present your case, opting instead to simply debate tangental issues and revert the name incorrectly, and insist that because you all agree, that's the way it should be. And once you get your way, you suddenly become silent. If you still refuse to answer the following question, your silence will be evidence that you have no case to present:

What makes this article any different from the DualShock article or the Smite article (neither of which have I edited)? These articles follow the MoS. The MoS is the default position. What makes this article so special that it shouldn't follow the MoS?

The MoS even indicates as much: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay. For these, see the technical restrictions guideline."

For clarity, here are some specific reasons (taken from the MoS) that this article title should use standard formatting:

:"Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility."

:"Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." So, for instance, in this case, all caps is confusing to the reader, as it indicates an acronym. The reader is left wondering "What does LITTLE stand for? Where's the acronym expansion?" And they then read through the article, or perhaps search the internet to find out what it stands for, because we editors incorrectly indicated that LITTLE is an acronym.

InternetMeme (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to compromise with big.Little (with {{lowercase}}), but I got reverted back. WP:MOS/TM needs to be followed here. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are following WP:MOS/TM. It says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." (emphasis added).

The only sources that call it big.Little are a few early "hey folks, look at what ARM is thinking of doing" reports. Since big.LITTLE was introduced, that's what the sources call it. Thus, the list of styles already in use by sources is a list with one item (big.LITTLE) on it, and among the items on that list, big.LITTLE (the only item on the list) most closely resembles standard English. Alternatives such as Big.little, big.Little, etc. are either in early reports or are obvious typos (calling it big.LITTLE 7 times and Big.Little once in the same article, for example.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. @InternetMeme: I contend that the MOS does not reflect a consensus of editors, based on the ongoing (and, I believe, increasingly weighty) arguments against on its talk page(s) and in specific cases like this one. The detailed reasoning is all present in the MOS talk page arguments. Are we supposed to follow MOS meanwhile? Maybe not, according to silliness like WP:IAR.

As long as the article is currently named Big.LITTLE, can't we make it completely correct with {{DISPLAYTITLE:big.LITTLE}}? The current state is wrong to ALL of us. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title - ARM

I'll let everyone else hash out the "big.little" case, because my only concern is the lack of the "ARM" at the beginning of the article name. When it comes down to a vote, there needs to be examples with "ARM" at the beginning of the article name for me to vote on. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARM related articles:

Hmm. I thought the main reason to concatenate a company name to a product name was to distinguish if from other identically named products. Given that there are no other Big.Littles, why should we add "ARM"? Is there another standard that I'm unaware of? I'm certainly not particularly against the idea, I just see no particular reason for it. InternetMeme (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the main reason, although it is a factor. This is an interesting question, and there are good arguments either way. We have an article titled .NET Framework instead of Microsoft .NET Framework, and as that article points out, "The Microsoft .NET Framework is the predominant implementation of .NET technologies. Other implementations for parts of the framework exist", which is a good reason to not have Microsoft in the title -- the article is about all of the .NET Frameworks. On the other hand, nobody but Adobe makes a software product named "Acrobat" (there are other PDF readers, of course, just as there are other heterogeneous computing architectures besides big.LITTLE), and the article is called Adobe Acrobat. This makes sense to me, because there are other acrobats, even if they are not software packages, and we really do need the Adobe in the title to differentiate it. On the third hand, only Microsoft makes a Foundation Class Library, and there are no other kinds of foundation class libraries, and yet our article is titled Microsoft Foundation Class Library, not Foundation Class Library. On the fourth hand, we have Pentium, not Intel Pentium. How about the words "Macintosh" and "Lisa"? Both words have multiple meanings, right? Only Apple has ever made a personal computer named Macintosh or Lisa. So how did we name the articles? Macintosh and Apple Lisa. And getting back to that Pentium, (not Intel Pentium) we have the Intel iAPX 432 (not iAPX 432). Could that last one reflect some rule about product names that look like random letters and numbers needing the name of the manufacturer, like Zilog Z80? Nope. We have PDP-8.

Sorry, but the MoS doesn't specify any rule on this. It needs to be decided by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of recent edit war

Timeline of recent edit war:

15:50, 17 Oct 2012: Page created as big.LITTLE[3]
20:32, 29 Oct 2012: Nominated for deletion as Big.LITTLE; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big.LITTLE.
(The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes.)
01:02, 06 May 2013: User:ViperSnake151 moved page Big.LITTLE to Big.Little[4]
01:18, 06 May 2013: User:Andy Dingley moved page Big.Little to Big.LITTLE (1st revert)[5]
11:30, 07 May 2013: User:Widefox supports big.LITTLE[6]
07:52, 30 Jul 2013: User:InternetMeme moved page Big.LITTLE to Big.little (1st revert)[7]
10:15, 31 Jul 2013: User:Comp.arch supports big.LITTLE[8]
19:05, 31 Jul 2013: User:Andy Dingley moved page Big.little to Big.LITTLE (2nd revert)[9]
03:03, 01 Aug 2013: User:Sbmeirow supports ARM big.LITTLE[10]
18:23, 04 Aug 2013: User:InternetMeme moved page Big.LITTLE to Big.little (2nd revert)[11]
18:33, 04 Aug 2013: User:InternetMeme supports Big.little[12]
18:35, 04 Aug 2013: User:InternetMeme also supports 'big.LITTLE' (with single quotes) [13]
15:47, 05 Aug 2013: User:Andy Dingley supports big.LITTLE[14]
03:14, 06 Aug 2013: User:Guy Macon supports ARM big.LITTLE[15]
13:55, 06 Aug 2013: User:Sbmeirow clarifies; supports ARM big.LITTLE or ARM big.little[16]
15:46, 05 Aug 2013: User:Andy Dingley moved page Big.little to Big.LITTLE (3rd revert)[17]
09:29, 06 Aug 2013: User:InternetMeme moved page Big.LITTLE to Big.little (3rd revert)[18]
13:08, 06 Aug 2013: User:Sbmeirow requests page move protection[19]
14:29, 06 Aug 2013: User:Guy Macon moved page Big.little to Big.LITTLE (1st revert)[20]
14:47, 06 Aug 2013: Page move protected [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite)[21]

Notes:

No 3RR violation because the edit warring was slow motion, but it is still edit warring.
Neither of the two edit warriors tried discussing it on the article talk page until after making multiple reverts.
The consensus so far is four editors who support Big.LITTLE, one who supports Big.little or 'big.LITTLE' and one who is OK with LITTLE or little as long as is has ARM in front of it.

Both InternetMeme and Andy Dingley handled this badly. InternetMeme should have followed WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD and started discussing instead of reverting when Andy Dingley reverted his edit. Andy Dingley should have responded to InternetMeme reverting instead of discussing by immediately opening up a discussion himself and reverting again only after asking whether there is a consensus to do that on the talk page.

I suggest that we all learn a lesson from this and handle things according to WP:BRD next time. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At 8:08AM central time, I put in a request for page renaming protection until the naming gets resolved. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I had missed that one. I have updated the above timeline. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's clear that none of you care about the journalistic professionalism of Wikipedia, proper English, or the MoS. I'm going to try to enlist the help of some experienced editors via the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (unless you know of a more directly-related system for solving this issue). InternetMeme (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting other users does not strengthen your case. Quite the opposite, actually. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I wasn't referring to you two at all there, my comment was meant for the other thread. InternetMeme (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, even if you are right, you are assuming bad faith by telling people they "don't care" when it is clear that they do care but simply disagree with you and you are accusing people of being unprofessional and not using proper English in an area (using spellings like iPhone) where language experts and style manuals disagree. Frankly, you are coming across as being arrogant and combative.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, a small bit of humility here would go a long way toward making folks receptive to your arguments elsewhere. Why don't you simply admit that you failed to follow WP:EW, WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD and make a commitment to doing better next time? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you misrepresenting what I said? I never had a problem with iPhones, as the name follows proper English (one capital per word). Writing all caps titles is not proper English, and that's what they want to do. Saying these guys don't advocate using proper English is a fact, not an accusation. I didn't mean that they are unprofessional, I'm just saying that they want to introduce unprofessional language into Wikipedia.

Humility simply doesn't help in this kind of situation. I've tried it before, and if you bring your reasoning to the table in a humble, modest way, people walk all over you, disregard what you say, and speak condescendingly. Honestly. both ways lose. The only thing that works is when people agree to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which I'm always happy to do, even when it goes against the way I expected things were done.

Have you ever seen an all caps title in Britannica (besides an acronym)? No you haven't; because there aren't any. It's not done in a professional encyclopedia.

Sorry for the edit warring however; that was wrong. InternetMeme (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment about edit warring. Your turn, Andy. I do not agree that the "i" in iPhone is a word, or that, even if it is, camel case in any form is proper English. We use iPhone instead of Iphone because, as the MoS clearly explains, when a trademark is spelled in a non-standard way and is well known by that spelling, such as iPad, that's how Wikipedia spells it, and when a trademark is spelled in a non-standard way but is not well known by that spelling, such as REALTOR, Wikipedia uses the more widely used spelling, which in this case is realtor. This is Wikipedia's standard. Whether you think that it is "unprofessional language" is irreverent. How Britannica does things is irrelevant. The core problem here -- the one thing that everyone else in this discussion has told you multiple times -- is that WIKIPEDIA'S MANUAL OF STYLE DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS. If you think I and all the other editors here are all wrong on this, feel free to ask at WP:MOSTALK or post an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please stop talking about iPhones? I never wanted to talk about them; it's you guys that brought up that subject. I have no interest in talking about them, as the article already follows proper English (one capital per word).

> How Britannica does things is irrelevant.

If you think that, then you are simply not aware of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. But I do genuinely appreciate your input into this discussion, as you've been generally pleasant and conducive to good discourse.

InternetMeme (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent naming

Now that it appears that we have settled on big.LITTLE as the article name, is it possible to change the talk page name from Talk:Big.LITTLE to Talk:big.LITTLE to match? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was quick. I didn't know we had a template for that. Thanks, Andy! You get an attaboy for that (usual restrictions apply). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, again.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big.LITTLE → ARM big.Little – Combining two birds with one stone here; although most of the names cited above do not technically need disambiguation, they seem to have settled on prefixing them all with ARM in their titles for formality. Additionally, MOS:TM applies here; as if the recent deadmau5 controversy surrounding that particular guideline weren't awkward enough. But that's a different case, it did not involve incorrectly formatting a non-acronym in the appearance of one. But anyway, the point is that we need to follow a guideline that has consensus behind it. It may feel like I'm strong arming you (pun intended), but this is how things work around here. Let's end this dispute once and for all. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC) ViperSnake151 Talk 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose as before, and as per deadmau5.

No opposition to ARM big.LITTLE, should others favour that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This does seem like a much more sensible title, being more precise, recognizable, and consistent with MOS:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Precise"? "Recognizable"? These words do not mean what you think they mean. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you to respect other people's opinions? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC
Not if those "opinions" are no more than a random arrangement of apparently positive, unchallengeable words that bear no relation to the proposed rename. ARM use the term 'big.LITTLE' with that specific formatting. This is a deliberate branding move on their part, to increase customer recognition of the technological brand. The only reason for WP to rename away from this would be to favour one (of several) possible interpretation of a minor guideline. This rename would not be more precise, it would be less precise. This rename would not be more recognizable, it would be less recognizable. Please do not abuse the meaning of common words merely to support a weak and dogmatic argument that makes for a worse encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the words in the sense of WP:CRITERIA as I understand it. The additon of "ARM" improves recognizability and precision. The case adjustment brings it into line with MOS:TM, which specifically says to discount the styling wishes of the trademark owner (though I would also capitalize Big, now that I notice). We are not the only source that makes such decisions. See [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, is it your viewpoint that Wikipedia exists to honor "deliberate branding moves" that will "increase customer recognition" of "brand[s]"? That does not seem very neutral for me; in fact, it sounds like we would be engaging in WP:Promotion of products and branding. Croctotheface (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to be an encyclopedia and to communicate information to our readers. We do not achieve this by dogmatically spiting our face to re-invent capitalisation, rather than using the more recognisable form.

Any other Brits here remember the days of "rubber solution glue" and "sticky-backed plastic"? The BBC at one time was tripping over itself so much to avoid mentioning brand names that it invented these unrecognisable neologisms for common products. It even blanked out brand names on the jar, yet left the recognisable packaging behind. No-one knew what "rubber solution glue" was or where to buy it, until we realised they meant Copydex (the only such brand on the market).

We are here to communicate an encyclopedia, not to indulge a fondness for observing policy for the sake of the observation, not its benefit. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Supporting the support of a supporting move. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose as a clear violation of WP:MOS/TM, which says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources" (Emphasis added). Virtually every secondary source since the day big.LITTLE was released follows the lead of the primary source and call it big.LITTLE. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every? What about the 10 that I easily found and linked that don't? Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the first 150 results for https://www.google.com/search?q=ARM+"big.little"

9 8 7 8 7 8 8 7 9 5 8 6 8 4 7 big.LITTLE Total = 109

0 0 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 Big.Little Total = 16

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 big.Little Total = 5

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Big Little Total = 3

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 big.little Total = 2

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Big.LITTLE Total = 2

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Big.little Total = 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 big/little Total = 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Big-little Total = 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 big-little Total = 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 BIG.LITTLE Total = 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 Unrelated Total = 5

109 + 16 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 5=150

--Guy Macon (talk)
This is a general Google search, right? Do we have any idea how reliable any of those sources are? Do we have any reason to trust the first 150 results that Google showed you, which are likely different from the first 150 results that Google shows others? Hypothetically, if every single high-level source used a more standard English style, but every single low-level blog or press release repository used the company's preferred style, which way do you think the result should come out? Croctotheface (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up two issues; Google giving different results to different people, and quality of sources. To the first, when I do a test I send a blank user agent string and don't let Google access any cookies or run any scripts, so I am fairly certain to get the default behavior. Feel free to repeat the experiment yourself and see if you get different results. To the second, it is possible that the top results on Google will be low-level blogs or press rel;eases and that the high-level sources are below #150. Possible, but unlikely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that there are very few high level sources that cover this topic, regardless of whether you pick 150 or some other number. I'm generally reluctant to take aggregated data about sources we wouldn't cite in our articles to be influential over our articles, especially considering we get to follow our own style guide, not one determined by Google hits. Croctotheface (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's called big.LITTLE. We should call it that. I've no opposition to "ARM big.LITTLE", though I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate, since it's probably trademarked without the ARM in front and can't be used by anyone else in a related field. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I suppose. This is certainly a nonstandard style. It appears that it's not quite a "big enough deal" that lots and lots of publications, including those with "mainstream" manuals of style, tend to write about. If this is wrong, and mainstream publications use the company's preferred style, then I may reconsider my opinion. However, unless it does, this is a very different case from "Deadmau5" and we should not misapply what happened there. Croctotheface (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See in section below. 46.22.107.130 (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not advertising. It's not our job to "show respect for ARM's IP" as you say in the section below. This !vote does not appear to comport with or cite policy. Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct link is WP:NOTADVERTISING not WP:ADVERTISING As used above. I believe that Croctotheface is incorrectly interpreting Wikipedia policy on advertising. (Helpful hint: whenever someone tells you that you are not interpreting Wikipedia policy correctly, your response should include a cut-and-paste of the exact wording of the exact section of the policy in question) I see nowhere in that policy saying that what I call "using the established name of something [which in this case is the same as the intellectual property (IP)] instead of a made-up name" and which 46.22.107.130 calls "showing respect for ARMs IP [which in this case is the same as the established name]" is an invalid reason.
  MOS:TM tells us how to approach trademarks and other intellectual property. When, as is the case with iPhone, EETimes and big.LITTLE, the established name is the same as the IP, we absolutely do respect the IP, not out of deference to the IP owner but for the benefit of our readers. When, as is the case with Realtor/REALTOR, the established name is not the same as the IP, we use the established name. Once again, for the benefit of our readers. The key is that the IP must become the established name. Apple has successfully established iPhone instead of Iphone. The realty people have failed to establish REALTOR instead of realtor. ARM has established big.LITTLE instead of Big.little. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  This response is not quite condescending enough, so I'd appreciate if you could ratchet up the condescension in any further replies. Since you're fond of quotes, I'll quote from an essay, WP:Wikilawyering, which discourages "[a]sserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express." My view is that WP:Advertising (oops, did it again!) establishes that we do not exist to service companies or assist them in "establishing their brand" or encouraging "respect for their IP" as some people here have asserted. You seem to believe that my position is ridiculous because, what, WP:Not doesn't specifically reference trademarks?
  
  Your position is different, though. You do not argue that we should "respect IP." Rather, you argue that we should use "established names." A fair argument, but importantly, a different one. My response to the IP (no relation) user points out the issues with his argument, not yours. But since I'm here anyway...first, I see no evidence of an "established name" for Big.Little. it just hasn't received enough coverage in sources we'd feel good about citing in the encyclopedia for me to say that anything is "established." Second, WP:MOSTM says that we have a strong preference for styles that more closely resemble standard English. It's not about "established" versus not, though a style that gets used almost exclusively in high-level sources is probably standard English, so I suppose you could call that "establishedness" if you like. Specific to this article, I see enough evidence that a more standard style exists in sources (your reference to a "made up name" is wholly inaccurate) to say we should probably use it. If there are a lot of high-level sources that use the company's preferred style, I haven't seen that, but that sort of evidence might cause me to rethink my position. Croctotheface (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I am going to follow the advice at WP:IAD and not respond to the above. You can make a rough count of consensus so far as well as I can. --Guy Macon (talk)
  I'm pretty sure that responding to say you're not responding does not count as "ignoring" and, in fact, counts as responding. I'm not sure what consensus you're talking about, but in case this assuages your concerns, I'm comfortable with whatever the final result of this discussion is. Croctotheface (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:PRECISION. Extra word not necessary, awaiting strong case being made for the need of it. Usage in sources and articles is without, so overprecise. As I started the naming section on this talk page, I discovered just now the ridiculous edit war - this is bikeshed territory! Common sense would allow the iPhone TM guideline example to be extended to big.LITTLE. Additionally the case is illustrative of size (and somewhat beautiful in the humour to me). Usage in sources agrees with big.LITTLE. As for consistency here, that may be IAR or may just be a minor extrapolation of the guideline. No big deal really. As for ARM in front, nothing against it, but don't see the need, seems overprecise. Agree with User:Andy Dingley, no opposition to ARM big.LITTLE but no real point either. In case anyone is concerned that readers are attempting to find the article using that, I've redirected it in the meantime, and tagged as 'redirect from full name'. Widefox; talk 10:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "LITTLE" is not pronounced as individual letters. It is stylized. That's different. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This *is* the first time I've elected on Wikipedia (my opinion was counted as a vote before). It seems I can vote whatever I like, I don't have to read through all the arguments here and WP:MOS (although I have - probably spending way too much time on Wikipedia reading/changing). Hope I'm still qualified. Not sure if I should come to any right conclusion (then an election seems pointless), this is just my gut opinion. If people dislike LITTLE in uppercase (I don't) then should it not be ALL lowercase? Can/could I change my mind later? comp.arch (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yet Another Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Note, however, that concurrent RMs should not happen. Please don't do this again. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{(Please note that the above infobox incorrectly implies that the current title is "Big.LITTLE" instead of the actual "big.LITTLE".)}

big.LITTLE → ARM big.LITTLE – Adding ARM to the page name appears to be uncontroversial, as opposed to any proposal that changes ".LITTLE" to ".Little", which is extremely controversial and has been the cause of recent edit warring and page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I don't think it's necessary to have the "ARM " prefix, but don't oppose it since there's some precedent in the existing ARM processor articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I see no point to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For me, "ARM" must be in the title, but I'm neutral on the upper/lower case of "Big" and "Little". What I mean is that as long as the title has "ARM" at the beginning of it then I'll support, otherwise I'll oppose it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MOS:TM. No need for the weird caps styling here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a silly issue Wikipedia editors. Having the company name in the title does not really matter, but please show respect to ARMs IP and write it big.LITTLE the way the creators intended. 46.22.107.130 (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (Computerguy)[reply]

Comment procedural issue - Guy Macon I agree with you above, but why run a second concurrent RM? My comment in the above RM stands, please make the case for adding "ARM ", rather than it just being the least controversial change possible. Reasoned concise discussion will get us out of this bikeshed territory. See WP:PRECISION. Widefox; talk 10:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2016 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles

I closed a 2016 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles about the article's title as: "There is no consensus in this RfC to rename ARM big.LITTLE to ARM Big.Little. I recommend opening a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Talk:ARM big.LITTLE if any editors want to further discuss the name further." Cunard (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apple A10 not (necessarily) big.LITTLE

Where is there any published proof that the iPhone 7 with it's A10 processor is a big.LITTLE design? Obviously it uses a similar concept, but I don't believe it's correct to have it included in the table without some disclaimer (which I am not qualified to draft). — Preceding unsigned comment added by XKL (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, am removing. Dbsseven (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARM big.LITTLE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417183714/http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/big.LITTLE_Final.pdf to http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/big.LITTLE_Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ARM big.LITTLE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implementations

The implementations list is getting to be quite large. Does anyone find this list to be useful? If so, perhaps we can split it off into a "list of..." article. On the other hand, if nobody needs a (most likely partial and possibly outdated) list of ARM big.LITTLE implementations, we might want to just remove the section. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am WP:BOLDLY nuking the section. We can restore while we talk about it if anyone decides to discuss the removal here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages

I think we need a section on the disadvantages of heterogeneous architectures. This may draw parallels to Intel's heterogeneous Alder Lake processor. Agnerf (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (Press release) [Samsung Primes Exynos 5 Octa for ARM big.LITTLE Technology with Heterogeneous Multi-Processing Capability Samsung Primes Exynos 5 Octa for ARM big.LITTLE Technology with Heterogeneous Multi-Processing Capability]. {{cite press release}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]