Talk:Blue Mountain (supercomputer)

Merge from ASCI Blue Mountain
I propose that ASCI Blue Mountain be merged into Blue Mountain (supercomputer). They appear to be the exact same topic. Which article name is used doesn't matter to me, but I would guess Blue Mountain (supercomputer) is the more common name and per WP:NAME would be the proper one to use. —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as nom —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support seems a fine direction . W Nowicki (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Against Blue Mountain shold be moved to "ASCI Blue Mountain" because full name of the system is "ASCI Blue Mountain" similar to ASCI Q, ASCI White ASCI Blue Pacific and ASCI Red
 * OK then, are you really against a merge though? To be precise it seems a merge in the other direction would be more appropriate than a move. A move over an existing article requires a longer process with administrator intervention, and destroys the history of the target. If we just merged this content (there is not much) into the ASCI Blue Mountain, then we could it ourselves. In fact should take an hour or so, perhaps could even be done "boldly". Actually that direction has another advantage: there would be no need to piped wikilinks to avoid redirects, since not only is that its full name, but will probably remain unique and not need those parentheses in the title. Wikipedia policy does not say that full names must be used, but rather tends to favor "most common" and as per nom both names would be close there. Especially given ASCI Red etc. I would change my preference to that direction too. W Nowicki (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: do you have knowledge or evidence that ASCI Blue Mountain is more common than Blue Mountain?  —EncMstr (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said I had evidence of either way, which is why "both names would be close there". As I was trying to say, the consistency argument would favor a merge into ASCI Blue Mountain which sounded good to me and why I changed my preference. My guess would be much informal communication of course shortened the name, but that does not mean we must. Just do it one way or the other please. Two articles each not very well sourced does not sound sustainable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction needed!
What is " It is capable of 3.1 trillion operations per second." ? How much is a trillion? Is that 3.1 Tips? Is that 3.1 TFlops? In single precision? Double precision? Computing articles should always use comparable terminology. Otherwise the statement is useless. For example, I have a 1GHz CPU that is far, far slower than a 100MHz Pentium. It is promoted on the basis of being "1 GHz". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.72 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)