Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

A New Start

The article had many details in it that apply to any device that plugs into a floppy disk interface, plus a lot of product comparisons that I don't find in most articles about PC peripherals. I have completely rewritten the article to be more encyclopedic, following the guideline at WP:IINFO, which says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia - it has to be notable.

The result has one glaring deficiency which I am asking for help on. There simply are not very many articles about FDHEs other than pages by various people who sell them, and thus I am having trouble getting enough citations.

I invite everybody to take a look at my work and to try to improve on it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, my first thought is that it's impossible to completely re-write an article without sources. Where did this info come from? I also don't understand why you added back in EL that explicitly violate WP:EL (each of them appears to be to a blog/self-published site, which explicitly fall under WP:ELNO. My third concern is that you said you made the article more encyclopedic, when much of the article is now bulleted lists of advantages and disadvantages. My personal opinion would be that if you don't have sources, you should go even farther, convert this into a stub that has only the most basic definitions and concepts, and then everything else would be added only when sources are found. Actual article editing is out of my hands, but as far as the process is concerned, I'm not sure you've done either what you said you did or what you should do. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite reasonable argument. OK, it's now a stub. Now of course I would like to expand that stub, but as I wrote before there simply are not very many articles about FDHEs other than pages by various people who sell them. I invite anyone who can to try to find some suitable citations. Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I rather think the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater here. The old article had its flaws, but I'm not sure it needed such drastic action as stubification. If primary sources are all we have then we can still work with them for the time being. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.png Right. Opening a new section about available RS and relevant article sections. Blackvisionit (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Could be a solution. This time be sure to apply Ahimsa and proactiveness in checking sources. Just giving an example: checking a 77 pages manual - as discussed before - with a quick CTRL+F isn't the right approach. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If I understood correctly, it's not that they're primary sources, it's that each of the sources is a biased, self-published page made by people with a specific interest in a particular product. But, y'all should review the sources to see if there isn't something good in them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Clearly EL are not going to be added anymore. Previous RS in the following section are all not selling-related or biased. Blackvisionit (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Chris Cunningham and think the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater here, but I want to do what the consensus calls for whether I happen to like it or not. I saved the last version at User:Guymacon/Work In Progress in case we decide to restore all or part of it. As to Qwyrxian's "Where did this info come from?" question about that version. it came from the same place that we got this In the Solid-state drive article:
"A solid-state drive (SSD) is a data storage device that uses solid-state memory to store persistent data with the intention of providing access in the same manner of a traditional block i/o hard disk drive. SSDs are distinguished from traditional hard disk drives (HDDs), which are electromechanical devices containing spinning disks and movable read/write heads."
In the Solid-state drive article, the above is non-controversial technical information. An editor who isn't technical may not know that a solid-state drive uses persistent memory, or even the difference between persistent an volatile memory, but nobody is likely to challenge the information, and thus it is unreferenced in the solid-state drive article. My goal in writing my previous version was to only present non-controversial technical information. Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, do you have a comment on the above? You don't have to comment, of course, and may wish to not get involved in content disputes, but I don't want to thrash around, first following your advice and then following Chris Cunningham's advice (which I agree with a lot more) only to have you come back and object. Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well....if a consensus of editors here say that the information is fully non-challengeable, then having it in without sources is fine. Should someone in the future come in and ask for sources, you can deal with that then. So, I guess the best step is to propose that text here, and see if you can get agreement. And, of course, continue the source evaluation going on below. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

OK, I put the material back. The first thing, I want everybody to look at it and see if there is anything that is incorrect, controversial, or likely to be challenged. If you see something, fix it right away - we can discuss it later. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Available RS

These are the previous existing references (no EL intersection).

Blackvisionit (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant sections

Pinout

  • Pinout comparison: PC, NC, strange ones. Good references.

Blackvisionit (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pinout comparison can not be avoided talking about universal emulation - remember that this article is not about emulating PC floppy drives. Pinout answers two of the key questions: WHAT kind of drives are we emulating? HOW is possible to emulate different drives? Blackvisionit (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Pinout comparison can not be avoided talking about universal emulation", sure it can. Just say that some FDHEs emulatate drives for systems X,Y and Z. What can not be avoided when putting information about universal emulation into a Wikipedia article is a citation reliable source that discusses universal emulation. Do you know of such a source?
Just out of curiosity, do you know of any commercial FDHEs that will emulate a floppy drive for a Commodore 64, Apply II, Kaypro, MITS Altair 8800, or IBM System 360? Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As usual opposite interpretation. Let's wait for other opinions. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I will take that as a "no." You do not know of any commercial FDHEs that will emulate a floppy drive for a Commodore 64, Apply II, Kaypro, MITS Altair 8800, or IBM System 360. You do not have a source for the information about universal emulation you wish to have inserted in the article. Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Upon reflection, this raises the question in my mind of whether this page is too PC-centric. The person who created it made the focus PC Floppy drives and those non-standard floppy drives (Japanese, for example) that have the same connector as a PC floppy drive and which his product emulates. I think expanding the topic to include FDHEs for systems such as Commodore 64, Apply II, Kaypro, MITS Altair 8800, or IBM System 360 is worth doing. I will see if I can find some sources for those Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

MFM

  • MFM, FM, GCR: Good references.

Blackvisionit (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Magnetic Recording Fundamentals can also not be aviouded talking about emulation. It answers another key question: HOW does host / emulator communication take place? RDATA and WDATA pins are carrying MFM/... signals - handled by hardware of software PLL. Inernal recording format - RAW MFM/... or digital - is an implementation choice. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy basics

  • Floppy drive basic funcionts: Good references.

Blackvisionit (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy drive basics, such seektime, step pulses and standard operative timings (ms) can also not be avoided. They answer another key question: WHICH time-critical limits has an emulator to respect in order to emulate a standard mechanical floppy? Blackvisionit (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Given your assertion that a solid state floppy disk must contain information on magnetic recording and signal timing, please explain why the Wikipedia article on solid state hard disk manages to get by without this sort of information. Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Explanation already given. Let's wait for other opinions. This is many-to-many discussion not 1-1. Blackvisionit (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You appear to not be willing to answer reasonable questions. Be advised that this is not an effective way of convincing other editors to make changes in a page you are prohibited from editing. I really do want to treat you fairly and to make sure any reasonable suggestions you make get implemented, but you are not making it easy to do that. Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Examination of proposed sources

I am going to discuss each of the above sources from the former article one at a time, giving my reasoning for not using them. My reasoning could very well be flawed in some or even all cases and thus should be examined with a critical eye. I would encourage Blackvisionit‎ to remain civil and to make logical arguments based upon Wikipedia policy and what's in the sources. That really is the best way to get what you want on Wikipedia.

Let's start with the first cite:

http://www.saitosite.com/database/index.html

This is a Japanese language blog from a company that does hard disk repairs,

The Japanese language is not a show stopper, although if we could find the same material on an English-language site that would be preferred.

The above comments about blogs as sources blogs could be argued to apply here as well. Google translate gives us this from that site:

"Saito sites' purpose is? Saito is the personal website site launched in 1999. The seeds scattered in the technical world, to share with those who participate, and participants can enjoy all the technical expertise to the axis."

And indeed it does appear to have a lot of correct technical information about pinouts for floppy disk drives. If needed, I could search out other, non-blog sources for pinouts to floppy disk drives. The problem is that the pinouts to floppy disk drives are not particularly relevant to a Wikipedia article about floppy disk hardware emulators. For example, take a look at Solid state disk, an article about solid-state replacements for mechanical hard disk drives as opposed to solid-state replacements for mechanical floppy disk drives. Solid state disk does not list pinouts for the SATA or IDE interface. Pinouts for floppy disk drives might belong in Floppy disk controller, but not here.

Looking at the other cites, I find:

http://pinouts.ru/Storage/InternalDisk_pinout.shtml and http://www.buchty.net/casio/fz1-diskdrive.html are also lists of pinouts.

http://www.lintech.org/comp-per/07MAGREC.pdf is about Magnetic Recording Fundamentals. How is this relevant to an article about a device that does not use magnetic recording?

http://www.hermannseib.com/documents/floppy.pdf and http://www.pcguide.com/ref/fdd/index.htm talk about floppy drives, not HFDEs. Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am open to the idea that information on magnetic recording or pinouts belongs in an article about floppy disk hardware emulation. It's just that other, similar Wikipedia pages about computer peripherals don't have that level of engineering detail. I don't think it belongs, but a good argument or a clear consensus will change that. Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

FDHE acronym

FDHE is not a standard floppy disk hardware emulator acronym. It has never been used outside this talk and has been just found out by a user some days ago. Let's stay stuck to wide spread hw emulator or floppy solid state replacement definitions - WP is not a source. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The article currently does not have that acronymActually, it was there and I missed it. Oops. Gone now. (it's actually an initialism, not an acronym), your point is valid and I will make sure that it does not creep in to the article. If you mean that you want to control what informal abbreviations people use on talk pages, good luck with that. Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to avoid filling the article with FDHE and let people search for it over the web with no result. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a good point. We don't want people searching for initialisms not in common use. When you have a good argument, you have a good argument. And making that argument in a civil fashion is far more effective than firing up the old flamethrower, Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Users keeping PC

many modern PCs do not have a floppy disk drive, making it impossible to read the data on the floppy diskettes
or to create floppy diskettes to update the software on the floppy-only equipment
Traditionally, users of such floppy-only equipment kept an older PC with a floppy disk drive in order to be able to read floppy disks

Users needing to write floppies on PCs without floppies only need to buy a USB floppy. Relax, take some time, avoid warring again. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppies out of production

Some floppy drives are at EOL (end of life) production cycle. Relax, take some time, sources will be provided. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant, even if sourced. Showing that some floppy drives are at end of life does not imply that floppy drives are going away, nor does it imply that a replacement for floppy drives is needed. Individual models were going into end-of-life 20 years ago. Manufacturers were getting out of the floppy drive business ten years ago as well. Other manufacturers got into the business and started making new models.
You claim that "Floppies drives are gradually going out of production." Prove it. Find a reliable source that makes that claim. As someone who sells replacements for floppy drives you have a clear conflict of interest and have no business reverting the good faith edits of those of us who have no financial interest in convincing people that floppies are going away.
You also - again - answered a question by starting a new section rather than replying below the comment you are relying to. You have been asked to not do that and you reverted me the last time I fixed it. After I finish this comment I am going to go back and put the disjointed thread back together - again. Do not revert. If you think replies belong in separate sections, make your case here. Give us a logical reason why it should be that way. Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)