Talk:List of Intel Xeon processors

Implemented WP:SPLIT + Sources
A reader popped up on WP:Discord and alerted to the fact that the page had actually reached its template transclusion limit. Since the list would not make sense any other way, I therefore decided to split it into its constituent list articles (of which there are 13). The original article had an unclear citation style and just put everything under the External links section. Now, several of the split list articles are unreferenced. I'd appreciate someone smarter than me figuring that out, so I wanted to leave an explanation here. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

cut down and reformat as a list of lists
Discussing the latest edit by MJL.

I'd like to revert the latest change, since you can no longer Ctrl+F through the page for quick comparison of Xeon CPUs. If the change is not reverted, each time one wants to find a CPU by it's model number, they'd have to a) open up all pages b) open up a selection of pages based on their best guess of the architecture.

I'll make the change on 22. Dec, 2019, if there's no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtagcat (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconding this: these revisions have taken a useful resource and made it completely unusable. 2.127.74.104 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

cut down and reformat as a list of lists (2)
Discussing the latest edit by MJL.

Supporting the Jtagcat desire. ''''

I also use this wiki page for full list search and compare of Xeon Processors. And All other lists as List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors, List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors, List of Nvidia graphics processing units and others - are full and without shorting links. I think its way more comfortable for usage.

If there is some issues with page lenth I suggest you to just shorten lists with old CPU`s which are not in common use today.

On my opinion the CPU`s from  and newer are still in use and dont needed to be shorten.

In fact I frequently compare Sandy and Ivy Bridge Xeons and newer. Please support my suggestion. But if changes wont be done I`ll undone it by myself to previous version. Sorry, I cant edit page by myself because I have no enough time to do that.

Mrrnnn (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, the reason I did that is that Wikipedia stopped being able to display the page properly. In fact, by the time the list gets to the last few generations the processors might as well not exist. Therefore, following the request of a reader on WP:Discord, I split the list up by each generation. If you want me to create you a new list for your specific needs, please let me know what your specific requirements are. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jtagcat and Mrrnnn - it should be kept as one list.  Many, many times I've searched the old list for, say, "E5-1620" to find it and easily compare to others.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Jtagcat Dec 16 UTC 01:42 >> : What exactly didn't display properly? Prehaps this is a mediawiki (meta) issue.


 * This is a proper split of PAGESIZE and technical reasons caused by template transclusion limit. A possible compromise is to maintain the split full detailed lists as MJL split them, but add a simplified list of just the processor names from each family for easy search. Opponents of the split need to understand that the list literally was failing to render due to technical limits. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Jtagcat Dec 16 UTC 01:58 >> I'd be ok with having a list of all models, each having a link. Now where the link goes is a better question. Does D-2141I go to the skylake page? Will each CPU have it's ID (so you can do the #section link)? —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Mrrnnn Dec 16 UTC 02:02 >> : I agree to ferret and suggest to hide old generations: List of Intel Core-based Xeon microprocessors and older by links. And leave CPU Lists after Nehalem-based Xeon in extended variant (as was before, in tables). I think that will be a good compromise. Mrrnnn (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ferret showed me how to get something similar to this done, so I'm on it now. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mrrnnn (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC) >> : Can you create another Wiki page named as ? Because many users (as me, Jtagcat and others) have used earlier page version to compare detailed info of Xeon CPU`s between genetations. If user want to compare CPU`s (E.g. 8 core Sandy and 8 core Ivy Bridge) now he cant to do that on single page. It will be great if you can move previous page version with detailed lists and tables to another page. And after that I`l write shortning suggest list to editor of that page to match wiki lenth requirements.


 * No. The page as it existed before had hit the maximum template data it could display, and the last 10-15 models weren't being listed at all. Putting those tables on a different page will not fix that. Arbitarily shortening the list by removing data from old processors is not the proper way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a shopping catalog for users to compare newer items they are considering buying or using. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not your job to tell users what they should or should not do with an Encyclopaedia. Ideology like this "users should do that or that" has no place in editorial decisions. That high horse you ride is a bit smelling.83.240.61.241 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Mrrnnn (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC) >> : I understand that is a limit of template data. And I will help to shorten it on the new page I asking for. Is it possiale to display page if we shortn First 25% of page to links?
 * You missed my point. To Wikipedia, older generations are not "less relevant" and "more deserving" of being removed from the list, for the convenience of those using the list to shop. WP:NOTCATALOG. If we have this list, it's because it's deemed valuable to an encyclopedia, and as such, no particular generation is more or less relevant simply based on the passing of time and new generations being released. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mrrnnn (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC) >> : Of course It`s an encyclopedia. And many other pages are same full detailed lists. i3 List, i5 List, i7 List, Nvidia List, AMD List. Is that a such a big problem to make user friendly page to compare or just handbook-styled page? If its not matching Wiki requirements we can make two pages with  and  Processors. But I see no reason for not to do that. Its just usability, if two users writed here I think there are hundreds other users wich also have same usecase and changing page from tables to lists will be very uncomfortable for them.
 * Mrrnnn (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)>> : I suggest to leave Lists of Xeon microprocessors as it is and create two more pages with tables Full list of Xeon Microprocessors P1 and Full list of Xeon Microprocessors P2 for user friendly usage.
 * Mrrnnn (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC) >> : I inspected WP:NOTCATALOG and solution with one main page and two subpages with tables will not conflict with Wiki rules.
 * 38.142.132.18 (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC) should be retained as single page, or one main page and two subpages with tables.


 * Please sign your posts after your comment, not before. I support the split. The place for easliy searchable, structured data, of this sort is Wikidata. That goal is rather orthogonal here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I search for "E5-1620" on Wikidata, it doesn't find it. Wikipedia does.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also forked the entire list onto Simple English Wikipedia if people justreally want the unchanged and unsplit list just without the earlier models. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's why this information should go there. I didn't say it was already there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank a lot. Mrrnnn (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm glad I could help! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

cut down and reformat as a list of lists (3)
Oh my fucking lord, if I had any!! Not THIS bullshit again, pretty please? I remember there was something similar couple years ago with List of Nvidia graphics processing units (and possibly AMD too). Fortunatelly ppl were sane and reverted back to what it looked like for a decade (and still does). Of course that you deal with things such as these by improving the bloody template architecture, because articles such as these are why GAZILLION ppl still come here, not by pretty much destroying the whole thing. Start messing with that and you might as well just turn the lights off and close the shop. (Which is what will happen anyway soon with that encryption BS but that's for another discussion).

I mean, heck, there was a reason why everything was on a single page (when some of you don't see it, it does not mean it is not there) and that's why so many ppl incl. me were using it for years in the first place! So anyways, let's give it a few weeks and if it won't revert to the state everybody was happy with, by dealing with the underlaying problem (instead of breaking the article, a very far level of where the problem is), I'll use all them bloody copycats who have copies of the previous variant and put it in its previous state on to my own frelling webserver where it will be hapilly running for the next 40 years without anybody messing with it. I need to USE articles such as these, not them using ME as a moron robot crawler which has to go through dozen pages to get to a few simple pieces of information.

Putting a shorter version to simple wiki is nothing but a temporary solution, I hope, cause a situation when there is not a full list of ALL the Xeon CPUs clearly is unsatisfactory. Behemot (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So do you have an actual suggestion to solve the literal technical limit and size issues this list was dealing with? Save us the rant if you don't have a helpful solution to suggest. We all understand why the list was convenient as one, but it literally no longer showed new entries due to a technical limitation, and someone tried their best in good faith at the time to solve that issue. There's many possible solutions, and it's already improved considerably by listing the models whereas before it was just links to the split lists. You're welcome to fork the article off wiki of course. Wikipedia is not a catalog, and no information has been lost. -- ferret (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was nothing preventing a SANE split along the lines of Pre-Nehalem (aka Legacy Stuff) and Post-Nehalem (aka Current stuff). But no, a bunch (?) of idiots decide to destroy one of the few really valuable (as in time-money) things on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.61.241 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think I'm an idiot who has ruined one of the most valuable things on Wikipedia. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe a wrong wording a is unlikely medically correct. A person who misses the forest for the trees, for sure. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is, since eaons ago, first and foremost a QUICK -reference- for information. This is why tables were used for item lists even in the printed versions. Breaking (immediate) usability - the difference of enc. in comparison to a compendia -  for the sake of technicalities like "table should not be not beyond one page" is the halmark of ignorance.83.240.61.241 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The exact list you want is on Simple English Wikipedia. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, having a complex/advanced format on a "simple" encyclopedia and the simplified on "normal one" is a bit. Contradictory. Secondly, the tabular format for the previous generations is STILL lost. But you are right. We should probably close shop here, classify it as a "zealots & propagandists place" and move on. A shame it is, but even Rome ended one day.83.240.61.193 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this was already considered, but can we get around the template transclusion limit by making a new sub-template for each section, like in List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors? I'm guessing not but wanted to make sure. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the limit is the total size of all transcluded content, so a sub-template still counts against it. AMD Ryzen simply isn't as large as this list was. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirection error
For some reason when I hit the page for "List of Xeon microprocessors" on standard English Wikipedia it redirects to this page, and to access the actual "list of Xeon microprocessors" I now have to use simple English Wikipedia. Can someone please correct this error? &#32;- Extec286 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC) If you type in the search bar:  and hit enter, then you'll be taken directly to that page. If you find yourself forgetting to use the  prefix or otherwise find yourself at this page, then you can just click on the hatnote at the top to go directly there. That second option is only available because I straight up broke Wikipedia's rules to get it there. That is the most I can seriously do for you and anyone else in your circumstances. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't doable. We are not able to do redirects to other Wikipedias. Basically, you have two other options though to quickly navigate to once you are on this page you'll have to simple:List of Xeon microprocessors.
 * The list has been moved back to it's original name to avoid confusion. The data was split due to hitting template transclusion list and well over 350kb in size. The latest 20-30 processorss did not even display due to the expand limit. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So why does it seemingly display correctly on Simple Wikipedia? 24.231.162.197 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because some data was removed completely from the Simple Wikipedia copy in order to get it under the limit. Simple Wikipedia's policies are different from English Wikipedia's. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced processors
Please do not add processor models without either an Intel ARK link or some other reliable source, such as several models in List of Intel Cascade Lake-based Xeon microprocessors. There's no elegant way (that I know of) to add an inline "cn" tag in the cpulist model field, so editors will have to see the warning template at the top of the page. Unreferenced processors should be removed. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Intel's confidentiality policies difficult the availability of reliable sources. Yes, there may be entries in this page that would constitute "original research" or derive from very unreliable sources such as eBay listings, and it is true that being a repository of original research is not the role of Wikipedia but I do find this page extremely useful, and I hope it is possible to find a home for this information somewhere before removing it for non-compliance with policies. Ecrz (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

cut down and reformat as a list of lists (4)
In my entire life, I have not seen a wikipedia article this bad, to be honest the design choice is even more terrible than PHP. Cmon peoples, work it out, divide the article into categories (Desktop, mobile processors, etc...) and then cut the categories down into CPUs generation, it will be tiring work, but it will be worth it. Ohwelpwelp (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)