Talk:Data storage

Article coordination/consolidation
I guess this article should somehow be coordinated with secondary storage, as well as with the computer storage article. --Wernher 02:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've flagged it to be merged into computer storage as I don't feel that this article contains any new relevant information that wouldn't belong there as a section.  cpritchett42 21:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree; it's better to write fewer, more detailed article anyway in my opinion--Brian1979 13:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, Computer Storage seems a general article. Data storage device or even perpherial storage device might be more appropriate. That is, devices that are not require for computer operation. Hard drive is not, memory is.


 * Both articles ignore historic uses of (any of the above). The uses, purposes and reasons have changed over time. For example, CDROM has become a back medium, where before it was diskettes and tapes. As such, this needs to be included somewhere. --meatclerk 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Some of the things on this page are not used exclusivley in computers. Rob.derosa 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Data Storage should be the primary article. Portions of the the Computer storage should be incorporated but many poionts should be reference links to seperate articles. i.e. CD-ROM there is little point in having a massive article that covers all forms of computer storage and that term is really outdated. Data Storage is more appropriate in todays context since there are other devices besides general purpose computers that use data storage mediums..i.e. digital camera's, game consoles, etc. These could arguably be called computers but in the context of the layman general purpose computers are the only thing that fit the description computer. Game consoles and digital camera's are special purpose computing devices that are not considered computers by the general populace even if they were to boot linux or some other computer operating system. 16:26, 03 September 2006 (UTC)

Paper as storage device
Well, we need a new entry on here. "Optical Pattern." Or something like that.

http://papertalk.wiki.taoriver.net/

For example, Nintendo sells data cards for reading in the Gameboy E-Reader. People buy the cards, and scan in programs. Bar code applies as well.

circularly-spinning object?
IBM has a holographic device that uses two moving lasers that pinpoint anywhere in 3D space for a cube shaped hologram. Inconceivable! Storage without the high speed spinning?!?!

DNA
Latest way to store digital information, in the DNA of bateria. -- Kendrick7talk 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Digitally encoded DNA. Fascinating! I'm wondering if we should mention it in the caption for the DNA photo. Oicumayberight 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I have added "DNA" into the caption. Somerandomuser (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting over the top
"Graffiti on a public wall. Public surfaces are being used as unconventional data storage media, often without permission."

No further clarification necessary. --88.193.241.224 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto, same goes for the stupid paint brush image. I think I could take any arbitrary object, say, a lamp, and say its a binary data storage system(light means value is true, no light means its false)Achilles2.0 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be too far fetched since early computer displays were made up of light bulbs. But, since the data was stored on punch cards, it wouldn't be the best example. But if a simple light bulb (not connected to a computer) were used to communicate, it would be a volatile data storage device as long as power was supplied.


 * It appears that you expect everyone to subscribe to a narrow definition of "data." Sorry, data and data storage have been around long before computers, or even language for that matter. Granted, paint brushes are not the first thing that comes to a conventional mind when thinking of data storage. However, the scope and significants of reality is not limited by common expectations. Art is a means of communication just as much as any other. Oicumayberight 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement about trends
There was a statement about trends added to the article. "International Data Corporation estimated that the total amount of digital data was 281 billion gigabytes in 2007, and had for the first time exceeded the amount of storage." I moved it to it's own section because it didn't belong in the terminology section. I'm not sure it even belongs in the article because it appears to be talking more about computer data storage when referring to the "amount of storage" than the broader category of storage devices covered in the article. It should be made clear if it's talking about computer data storage, moved to the computer data storage article, or both. Also the section should be removed if it isn't expanded within the year. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

physical and logical storage
The phrase "physical and logical storage" currently redirects here to data storage device. Which I find odd, because currently the "data storage device" article says nothing about logical storage. So is there supposed to be something about "logical storage" in this "data storage device" article (perhaps it was accidentally erased)? Or should the redirect be pointed at some article that does mention "logical storage" -- perhaps logical block addressing? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The term was only used in one article, File systems section. From the history of the term on wikipedia, it appears that it pertains more to computer data storage. I redirected the term to that article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

removed a sentence
"In a less comprehensive study, the International Data Corporation estimated that the total amount of digital data was 281 exabytes in 2007, and had for the first time exceeded the amount of storage.[4]"


 * - the second part of the sentence does not parse; text appears to be omitted
 * - I actually went to the footnote looking for it and it's a dead link (and pretty ancient anyway).

Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Here is the footnote information in case someone else thinks it's important enough to search it down: author=Gantz, John F.|title=The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe|url=http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/diverse-exploding-digital-universe.pdf|publisher=International Data Corporation via EMC|year=2008|accessdate=2009-04-09|display-authors=etal Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. There seems to be consensus that the idea is a good one, and also that we don't really need the dab page, and there isn't much to be salvaged from its history. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Data storage device → Data storage – At present, Data storage is a two-entry dab page that should be a broad-concept article. (It links to Data storage device and to Computer data storage.) A Data storage article is of vital importance, and Data storage device could serve as its beginning.

Such an article would encompass all types of data storage, as defined by information theory, from particles and molecules, to writing, to electronic media, to neurons, to ecosystems. Although there isn't much content in Data storage device, its scope is essentially the same, and, once renamed, it could easily be copyedited to accord with the Data storage headword. Ringbang (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had the James Gleick book, The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood sitting around now for six years (it was given to me as a gift). I've just barely started reading it, though the topic is very interesting to me. I really should just take the time to read it. Such a book, and others like it, could help give the overview of the article you describe.
 * But I think we have too much page-history on the title Data storage to just move over the top of it. I'd suggest closing this RM and then putting a template on the article. It's going to take quite a bit of work to produce such an article, and I don't think simply moving the page with the hopes that someone else will write the article is a good idea.
 * In the meantime, I don't think it will take much to convert the disambiguation configuration into a stub, ready for content to be merged into it. wbm1058 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for commenting. You may want to take a closer look at the history of Data storage. It was a redirect for its first three years; in the 10 years that it's been a disambiguation page, the most salient changes were to the list of links in the "See also" section.Of the two articles, Data storage device has a history much worthier of preservation. Since developing a broad-concept data-storage article would soon make the current contents of Data storage device redundant, and given that Data storage device is already in need of substantial revision, I think using it as the starting point without resorting to copy-paste merging gives us the best outcome.Happily, I wasn't proposing to move Data storage device and then hope that someone else copyedits it; I can copyedit it. —Ringbang (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I checked history and there is nothing useful there – it has always been a dab or dabconceptpage, and all edits are either vandalism or expansions of See also. As Ringbang says, the topic is worthy of a broad coverage article, and data storage device history is a good starting point. No such user (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Data storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118072720/http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0 to http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Storage medium redirect
Storage medium redirects here and there are about 50 incoming links through this redirect and similar Storage media. I added boldface to the first occurance of this term in the lead and reverted claiming it was not appropriate because storage medium is not a synonym for data storage. The purpose of the boldface is to orient readers when they land in a new article and, with the potential for so many readers to come in through these paths, I believe the boldface is warranted. I also believe it is supported by the manual of style. But, if I'm doing this wrong, I need to know because I do a lot of lead improvement work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You rightly mention the MoS clause about orienting readers who follow redirects. We, as editors, try to use good judgement about when and where to apply it. We may ask: Is the reader "disoriented" after following one of these redirects? The lead sentence uses the term storage medium, and establishes its relationship to the headword data storage. Boldface is an anchor for the eye, and therefore a potential starting point. Is it useful to attract the reader's attention to the end of the (short) lead sentence, when their most likely inclination would otherwise be to read that sentence? —Ringbang (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is useful. I was personally mildly WP:ASTONISHED when I landed here and that's why I added the boldface. It looks like you've abandoned your synonym argument. That's reassuring because I hadn't heard that one before. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Kvng,Per the first paragraph of MOS:BOLD, boldface in the lede is principally for the headword and its synonyms. I mentioned this is in my edit summary since your reasons for adding the boldface were unclear. In my previous comment I shared my perspective on the points you raised. Redirects from subtopic and related words abound, but rarely necessitate boldface for the redirect name. —Ringbang (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I too am suprised to find, for example, information storage redirects to this article. I think the problem may be that this article is too computer data storage specific. Clearly paper, film, records, etc. store information on their media. However I also agree that boldface in the lede is not an appropriate solution to the problem. We proably need a separate article on "Information storage" and should consider merging this article with "Computer data storage." Unfortunately I don't have the time to work on it so maybe we just have to leave it as it is. Tom94022 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we want to go beyond computer data storage. In fact, that's a key reason for this article's existence. To understand why it does not yet have more material about non-electric data storage, have a look at the section "Requested move 6 June 2017". This article is relatively new. It is still missing a huge amount of material and may even need a rewrite; but it is a broad-concept article, and its scope encompasses all forms of data storage, from rock art to DNA. There is a salient difference between data and information, however, and such a change in scope should be supported by rigorous sources. One of the functions of this article should be to distinguish between information and data as best we can. —Ringbang (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I mispoke, we should rename this article "Information storage" based in part on James Gleick book, The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. I don't see enough of a distinction between "data storage" and "computer data storage" to justify two articles and I don't think most people refer to the information in DNA, a book. a record, a microfiche or even an audio CD as data.  Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that the boldface is not the solution. I assume you prefer we reorganize and expand and have a separate article on Storage medium. That's all well and good but it will take some time to get there. What do you think is a good solution in the interim? Do you want to change where Storage medium redirects? Do you want readers to continue to be WP:ASTONISHED when they land here? Do you read MOS:BOLD the same way   does? ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be precise I agreed with "that boldface in the lede is not an appropriate solution to the problem".  I have no interim solution but I would like to hear from others as to splitting the article.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A good place to start a separate article on Storage medium could be to use translations of the German pages https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datentr%C3%A4ger and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datenspeicher PRullmann (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be stuck on this but I do a lot of work on leads in a lot of articles and want to make sure I'm not making a widespread mess of things. The second sentence of WP:BOLD has not been discussed, This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term that is redirected to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement., are you resting on the ...are not a requirement piece here in your revert or is there something else I'm still missing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)