Talk:Clock recovery

Sectional tree
Goodness, this is a long article, appropriate to a complex topic. However, is a five level heirarchy of sections, all the way down to sub-sub-sub-subsections, the best way to organize it? Shouldn't Section 1, to start, be abolished, its subsections promoted to sections, sub-subs promoted to subsections, etc? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it is long. In fact, with all due respect to the author, it is isn't an encyclopedia entry - it's more like a chapter for a book (which Wikipedia is  not).  Hence the reason it was imported into wikibooks by user:Mike.lifeguard.  As Wiki_is_not_paper points out, people come to an encyclopedia to obtain a brief overview of a subject.  Furthermore, we need to avoid information overload.  Instead, I believe that various parts of this article need to grouped logically into a few (new) articles and this page needs to be completely rewritten to provide an overview of the subject.  Think you could take a stab at doing that, Jim?&mdash; Mrand  T-C 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the edit history shows that practically all of it was pasted into place on August 27, probably from a chapter of an existing machine readable book, which would explain the sub-sub-sub-subsection structure. Perhaps, if the original is available online, most of the article should be replaced by a link to that online book.  As it is, such an original is not cited as a source or even as a reference.  Anyay I don'k know enough about the topic to do heavy editing on it.  Jim.henderson (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wondered that myself in the past, and actually did some google searches on parts of the text - but haven't found anything. I suppose I should just ask the original author... there, I've done just that. &mdash; Mrand  T-C 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you review the history of the page User:BORGATO_Pierandrea you will find quite a lot of edits, the end result of which was pasted into this page in one go. This appears to simply be something that a user wrote on his own user page, edited over time, and then pasted into place.  The heading structure probably just owes to an unfamiliarity with the "normal" way pages are formatted on Wikipedia (the editor in question has not edited anything outside this page, own user page, and images used on same). —  Aluvus  t/c 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)