This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
The main reason: This page doesn't have a section about the oversight of the FRA, which kind of important. It's mentioned, but not in detail, and simply moving that information from the page on the FRA law to this page would result in significant loss of context on FRA law.
This page is not that big to begin with, and if I remove the duplication of content, it shouldn't become that much larger after a merger. You can compare this page in size and content with other pages on signals intelligence agencies: NSA and GCHQ. If you have an opinion, please post it here. Gavleson (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Some clarification: Obviously, I feel the section "Scope, limits and provisions" is equally important as the one titled "Oversight". Renamed "Legal framework" it very much belongs on this page, IMO. That wouldn't leave much on FRA law... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavleson (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections, I'm proceeding with the merger as per WP:MERGEPROP for the above stated reasons, and for the fact that "FRA law" is a somewhat crude translation and not an established phrase in English. Discussion closed.Gavleson (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Computer no longer on Top 500? See my edits on the page
If you click on "Government Agency"  it seems to prove by point (better link to add in article? Or in addition?).
Clicking on the computer  you see these numbers: 13,728 102.8 146.4
However the other link  regarding it falling down the list, before I updated the the article, gives different number: 17,280 97.5 156.2
It would appear it is a different computer because it "is", that is it seems to be an upgraded one. May this have happened again (second link here, seems to disagree). [While the core number (and peak) is higher as expected, rmax is not. Should that also be higher? Was it miscalculated the first time?] comp.arch (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm actually unsure about this. My theory was they had upgraded it, because I couldn't find the "old" supercomputer on the list. Anyway, the Swedish Wikipedia article still has it listed 126 in 2011 using this source, but there has to be a more recent update... Appreciate the help on this. Gavleson (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)