Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 24
April 24[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2009
88000 Microprocessor → 88000[edit]
The result of the discussion was Kept. This is a reasonable search phrase that directs people to where information about the 88000 architecture and microprocessors that implement it is located. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
88000 is an instruction set architecture, not a microprocessor, so the redirect makes no sense. There are no microprocessors called "88000", implementations of 88000 ISA are the 88100 and 88110. Rilak (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomitation. blurredpeace ☮ 01:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as an instruction set, there are microprocessors that implement it, therefor, they are 88000 microprocessors, just as there are IA32 microprocessors, though no single microprocessor is named IA32. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, there are implementations of the 88000, but redirecting to an article that should be (and will be) soley about the 88000 ISA makes no sense. If the reader was after information about implementations, a redirect to the article to the ISA will not aid in providing the relevant information quickly. If there was a list, say "List of 88000 microprocessors/implementations", that is where it should go, but there is no list. Rilak (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - there are several uP's named in the article. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, there are several microprocessors named. I think the key word here is "named". I do not believe it is helpful to redirect to implementations to an article about the ISA that merely names the implementations. I doubt the usefulness of such a redirect, would one not type the name of implementation or the architecture? Rilak (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment They are not just named, some of their characteristics are outlined. And as for typing it in, considering that "88000" is a number, yes I do think someone would type it in, since "88000" does not mean the ISA, it means the number eighty-eight-thousand. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The characteristics of one implementation, the 88110 is described in an IEEE Micro article that is 24 pages long. The current description of implementations in 88000 are trivial and not particularly useful. As for 88000 being a number, yes it is, but so what? Most numbers are not notable, and I doubt anyone would want information about a particular number in such fashion. Mathematicians will visit Mersenne prime for Mersenne primes and a general audience probably wouldn't even know of any. Encyclopedias don't have articles on every single number, perhaps only on very notable ones, but unless any evidence is provided of 88000 as a notable number and thus a valid search term, the argument that 88000 will be confused seems weak. Wikipedia already has a system in place to prevent such confusion. For example, 2000 is an article about the year and the article for the number is disambiguated: 2000 (number). Rilak (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Nevertheless, they are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and some characteristics are outlined. Though, since you have the IEEE Micro issue, you could start an article on the 88110, and create a list of procs... Are you saying that for the lay person, "88000" represents an ISA? I don't think they would. So if someone who is not a computer scientist or computer engineer, where to look up something about a piece of antique hardware they got as a novelty, and someone said that it was an 88000 processor or 88000 microprocessor, they wouldn't type that in instead of the bare number? WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:R#KEEP #3 . How would deleting the redirect help people find the information, when there are 88000 microprocessors, and this is the article about their architecture, and some of the chips are described in some extent? If some average person heard "Mersenne prime" on a popscience show, they would expect to be able to read the article. They would also expect to be able to get there even if they mispelled it. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The characteristics of one implementation, the 88110 is described in an IEEE Micro article that is 24 pages long. The current description of implementations in 88000 are trivial and not particularly useful. As for 88000 being a number, yes it is, but so what? Most numbers are not notable, and I doubt anyone would want information about a particular number in such fashion. Mathematicians will visit Mersenne prime for Mersenne primes and a general audience probably wouldn't even know of any. Encyclopedias don't have articles on every single number, perhaps only on very notable ones, but unless any evidence is provided of 88000 as a notable number and thus a valid search term, the argument that 88000 will be confused seems weak. Wikipedia already has a system in place to prevent such confusion. For example, 2000 is an article about the year and the article for the number is disambiguated: 2000 (number). Rilak (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment They are not just named, some of their characteristics are outlined. And as for typing it in, considering that "88000" is a number, yes I do think someone would type it in, since "88000" does not mean the ISA, it means the number eighty-eight-thousand. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, there are several microprocessors named. I think the key word here is "named". I do not believe it is helpful to redirect to implementations to an article about the ISA that merely names the implementations. I doubt the usefulness of such a redirect, would one not type the name of implementation or the architecture? Rilak (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - there are several uP's named in the article. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)