Talk:Mirror (computing)

Unnamed section
I hope my 13 mirror examples of television are interesting. I am amazed there are so many, and I imagine others will be as well, SqueakBox 15:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * You might as well just link Mirrors and forks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;
 * Done that too thanks. It does though, give a nice up to date in your face example for the reader to contemplate, SqueakBox 17:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've de-linked the mirrors using the nowiki tag. I've noticed discussion in various SEO forums about how to "smuggle" a link to a site into Wikipedia in order to increase its pagerank.  This page is an obvious place to do it. -- Jeronim 13:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I just wanted to give an example of a site that was mirroring a lot, not particularly for people to go to them, and was feeling a bit uncomfortable as the numbers mounted up. Now I feel comfortable to add some more to the list, SqueakBox 15:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with these being taken out, SqueakBox 16:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't shed a tear if they were gone. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

"For example, when the popular Google search engine was banned in 2002 by the People's Republic of China, the mirror elgooG was set up as a way of effectively circumventing the ban." I don't think that this is strictly the case... Khedron 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Mirrored server to Mirror (computing)

 * Support: Same content — to me, at least — but I'm no expert in this stuff.+mwtoews 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: It's the same idea, but in slightly different contexts. Mirror_(computing) is a broad enough category to cover both. -- Austin Murphy 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Mirrored server does not have enough unique information to warrant a seperate article. Both articles include similar data. Recommend merge. Freedomlinux 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: A Mirrored server is one example of the process of the information technology process of mirroring [as in Mirror (computing)] if that distinction was made clear then sure, merge the two. Otherwise, just cross referring should be adequate.  Mark Dixon 27 Feb 2007
 * Support: Recommend merge, but keep unique information.--Antariki Vandanamu 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Going somewhere else
It seems the recent edits are about objecting to the duplication of disk mirroring in something about site mirroring. It seems to me that the topic of this article (mirroring as used in the sense of computing) is being changed into a specific article about site mirroring, indeed some of the wording is there.

I would say that there is a general concept of mirroring, but it is almost just a definition. Then we have specific examples of mirroring of which internet site mirroring is one example of the application of the concept.

The edits should not remove references to forms of mirroring, but should not go into detail if there is an in depth topic. Spenny 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the nature of the Wiki, it is going always somewhere else. When I approached this article three days ago, it was article on site mirroring mixed strangely with a few mentions of disk mirroring, giving false impression that site mirroring uses remote disk mirroring, or that they use similar technology. It was a Bad Thing. Since disk mirroring has its own article (even two, counting RAID1), the simplest thing to do was to disambiguate and provide links. I agree that now the first section should be expanded, to justify its general name. I'm against renaming it to site mirroring, as notability of such subject is insufficient. --Kubanczyk 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disk mirroring and mirror website (or download mirror) are different concepts and therefore need to be different articles. This title should disambiguate between the two concepts, much like Georgia (Europe) and Georgia (USA) are two separate concepts not addressed together in one article. K7L (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-Reference
I thought you weren't supposed to use Wikipedia as an example in an article?...Whatipedia 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well often self-referencing is problematic, but not always. These are the guidelines: Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid and it says "Articles about online communities may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on—or is a part of—Wikipedia" (WAWI)   I suppose we might say it's not very neutral to give the wikipedia example here, if we can think of a better example of a different website content being mirrored. But wikipedia is a prominent example of that -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All else being equal, it would be best to use Wikipedia as an example; it's the example editors, and to a lesser extent readers, would be most likely to be familiar with. Editors familiarity would make the information more likely to be accurate and up to date. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Abstract diagram to illustrate
I think somebody should make a simple sort of abstract image representing servers mirroring

-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)