Talk:List of solid-state drive manufacturers/Archive 1

Combine the tables?

Shouldn't we combine the tables? 110.174.48.248 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 70.79.50.5 (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cenatek RocketDrive RAM drive

The Cenatek RocketDrive ram drive is missing from the list. 70.79.50.5 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Columns out of alignment

This table needs to be fixed, the last ~4 columns or so are out of alignment. Ltwizard (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Low-end drives

What about low-end drives like Delock 128MB and up? For embedded applications the drives currently listed is to large and expensive. With to large i am referring to both their memory and physical sizes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.38.78 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

What's the point of this article? For ex "List of hard drives" doesn't exist so soon this article will bloat out of bounds, and it should be nominated for deletion. SSD drives start to be common. 90.37.153.68 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the page has outlived its useful life. There are now over 100 suppliers of SSDs and each of them have a list of drives. Maintenance on this page is impossible and should be nominated for deletion. If we keep anything, maybe we can have a list of SSD manufacturers without a breakdown on their individual drives. § Music Sorter § (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixing this list

I removed the prod from this article. It seems clearly to satisfy Wikipedia:N#Notability_and_lists. There's far too much detail at present, but I think it would be useful if it listed manufacturers instead (per the prod concern). I moved it from List of solid-state drives to List of solid-state drive manufacturers to start.

List of defunct hard disk manufacturers does a good job and may be a good model to follow. --Pnm (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. With the new scope (manufacturers) it's a little harder to satisfy Wikipedia:N#Notability_and_lists. I think there are still sources that discuss multiple manufacturers, but the article should cite some. --Pnm (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we just eject all the current material and start over then? I propose we have a basic list and display alphabetically with a source entry for each company name showing how we know they make an SSD.

I recommend against putting in any more detail than what may rarely change. Maybe we build the table to include 1) company name, 2) manufacturer type [HDD Mfgr, Flash Memory mfgr, Other]. Beyond that I think we should only consider adding items that will not change on a regular basis or we will end up in the same place we started. We Wikilink the company name connect a source. If we do a list we can have multiple columns on the one page, otherwise if we decide on a table with the data I proposed above, the table will only have one company per row, but I guess that will not end the world. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good start! The old content makes the new page hard to edit, so I'd like to remove it. (It'll still be in the history.) I added the country. (Do you know how to center the entire column?) I think we should remove the manufacturers without articles unless we find sources that establish notability. Also, I de-linked a couple which didn't point to the article. Lastly, we need to add some encyclopedic content to the lead that cites sources which discuss multiple SSD manufacturers, to satisfy WP:N#Notability_and_lists. --Pnm (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that a single SSD manufacturer list is sufficcient to replace the old list. It has been very valuable for me in order to find RAM SSD:s like hyperdrive and ddrdrive. I suggest that we have a RAM and Flash checkboxes, rather then to specify the exact type of memory like the old list did. I do agree that the standard flash SSD:s is now so common that having them in the old grid isn’t that useful. However I think we should keep the old list and remove all standard flash SSD:s, but keep everything that sticks out - including RAM-based drives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.83.98 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do believe the latest changes adding the Flash and RAM columns addresses the above concern without adding back data which was hard to maintain.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturers to check and add

The following were copied from the "Solid-state drive" section of "List of PC hardware manufacturers" article. They should be checked and added to the table above.

• Curtiss-Wright
• Lexar (part of Micron/Crucial; maybe just add to current entry?)
• LSI Corporation
• Trident Space & Defense
• Virtium Technology
• White Electronic Designs

§ Music Sorter § (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How to link in the list, redlink, pipes andor external refs

Currently each element of the list is a pipe, many redlinks, and a reference which is usually an external link. Examples:

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller
ADATA	Taiwan	No	No	Yes	No	No
AMP Inc.	United States	No	No	Yes	No	No

Would the table be more readable and less cluttered if we adopted the policy:

• Where a pipe exists and the piped article supports inclusion, just show the pipe
• Otherwise, use an external link in the "Name" column to link to the the external ref supporting inclusion.

Something like this:

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller
ADATA	Taiwan	No	No	Yes	No	No
Accelerated Memory Production Inc.]	United States	No	No	Yes	No	No

Note there are no references when constructed in this manner

Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom94022, redlinks, with independent and reliable references that they belong in this list. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

ELs to independent and reliable references provide the same information directly to editors without wasting article space and editor's time. If an editor decides to create an article the EL can be replaced by a WikiLink. This article is replete with redlinks that are never going to be articles and should be replaced by just an EL to the same RS. Tom94022 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, no, that is not what policy describes for lists, the references you provide are all primary. Anything which is redlinked needs an independent reliable source to show it belongs in this list. The formatting in WP:EL is chosen to fulfill against such promotion/spamhole/soapboxing, and this list is in violation of that. Being correct is not necessarily worth mentioning. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)