Talk:Supercomputing in China

Suggestion for future expansion and update
It would be good if those who read Chinese fluently and write English well could expand this article from the viewpoint of the relationship to the PHPC100 personal supercomputer. While Tianhe-1 is a fast machine, unlike most other supercomputers, it did not have a specific application in mind, and its main goal was development of the knowledge for building a really fast machine. That knowledge is likely to work its way down to new models of the PHPC100 type computer, pretty much the way knowledge gained through Formula One racing eventually works its way into passenger cars. So it would be good to set an example where information from Chinese sources gets updated into English Wikipedia over time. Much of the information on the PHPC100 is in Chinese, so a section on that in this article will be a good start, for this has the potential of changing the game for "personal supercomputing" where the impact will be far greater than the top levels of supercomputing. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See edits. Problem is understanding the technical content... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD and Relevance of Item
History2007, I don't understand why irrelevant information should be presented in this article - I have never seen Non-US top position super computers ever been given such treatment as to put future speculative "China beating" super computer in the article. I can only speculate its sour grape mentality because currently China sits on No.1 Position. If this is the case, then its perfectly okay to put any future speculative "American beating" super computers on the IBM Sequoia page as well ?? As I see it, those future speculative 'ranking' or super computer should be left out of the article. THIS IS WIKIPEDIA. We are here for the FACTS, not some speculation from the future. Spunking (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Spunking but I can not agree with you. As for the use of the term "sour grape mentality" that is not only speculative but also incorrect in my view. I see the information as relevant, given that the field is inherently fluid and there is no dispute about the correctess of the information. Your statement that it is "irrelevant" is your opinion and since we do not agree, your obvious remedy is to ask for a WP:Third opinion to obtain an independent view regarding its relevance - and I will hereby agree to respect said 3rd opinion. In the meantime, please respect the WP:BRD process and avoid a revert cycle. When two users do not agree, the remedy is a 3rd opinion, not a revert cycle. Please avoid reverts since that is the WP:BRD process. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

 * Viewpoint by History2007 : The dispute is about this deletion. The material is called irrelevant. Some of teh material was carefully added by other users, not myself, and gives a perspective. The factual accuracy of the information in question is not being disputed, and I am seeking an opinion regarding relevance. I see "no injury" done to Wikipedia readers by knowing about the new supercomputer, and given that it relates to high performance systems, I see it as relevant, and factually valid. The reader will just get a better perspective by having this information. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but what about this paragraph:


 * Although China has the fastest supercomputer in the world and the second most number of supercomputer in the TOP500, the US still has far more supercomputers in the TOP500 overall.  As of November 2010, there were 42 Chinese supercomputers, compared to 275 supercomputers in the United States among the top 500. Apart from China and the United States, Japan, France and Germany are the other countries with a supercomputer ranked in the top 10 positions.


 * Please clarify that too. My suggestion: Please edit these two paragraphs as you see fit and let us be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that paragraph is a bit more relevant, as it is a direct comparison of China to other countries. I think it could be stated in a better way though.  I'll see if I can come up with something.  Snotty Wong   talk 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was a pretty efficient 3rd opinion. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes. Let me know if you have any comments.  Thanks.  Snotty Wong   comment 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty good fixes actually. And the table is worth 1,000 words - it highlights facts, e.g. about the UK. Now if you can dig up PCP 100 info, as discussed at the top of talk page, that would be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way Snottywong two of the three articles on the specific centers need help. If you feel like making similar fixes there it will be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs updating
This page hasn't been updated in something like 4 years. "by 2012" Someone who knows something about supercomputing please share your knowledge on China's stuff. All I know is that Tianhe-2 is now ranked first in the world as of Nov 2013. 14.53.186.168 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)