Talk:Montecito (processor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Damn, is it NDAs which are preventing experts to participate in this article?

  • Mostly, but is an encyclopedia really the right place to be talking about unreleased products? It's better to be accurate than up-to-date: leave up-do-date but inaccurate to the news sites. I'm sure this page will grow significantly after Montecito starts selling.

Rename article?[edit]

Anyone else think that this article should be renamed to Montecito (Intel) or something? Then Montecito could be a redirect to the city, with a disambig link back to the intel article. Montvale is already a redirect to its city page, and there is no page on the Intel codename yet. The Tukwila page should also maybe be renamed to Tukwila (Intel) and let Tukwila redirect to the city page, with a disambig lnk back to the intel article. -- Bovineone 04:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with that, but I suggest that *codename*_(processor) format would be better [ Montecito_(processor) ], or something like this. (unsigned comment by 19:42, 31 October 2005 Naffeju)
    • Yes, I suppose that might be a little more consistent with wikipedia naming policies. Conroe is another such codename article. -- Bovineone 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've added the "(processor)" suffix to Montecito, Montvale, Tukwila, and Poulson, with appropriate disambiguation pages. Bovineone 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken link, not using <ref> ... </ref>[edit]

I put a hidden comment in the article marking the location of a broken link, namely:

After a few seconds, this link redirects to:

The information there is relevant to the Itanium family of processors, but it does not say anything about the power reduction that the sentence is talking about (at least that I could see). I thought about removing the link and adding a [citation needed], but that would have been a step backward. Maybe someone else can find a better link. Also, I think the article would look better if it used the usual footnote style of ref tags with a cite web template. This is a style consideration; I have read that it is considered bad behavior to reformat all the citations in an article without discussion. Would anyone mind if I did that? CosineKitty (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)