Talk:Write-only memory (engineering)

Original research
The article does desribe certain tecnhical situations which can de described by the term WOM, but I amd not so sure that the references provided use this term. If they do not, then this is original research ofr type WP:SYNTH. Please confirm that each refience cited does indeed use the term, preferebly with a quote.

Also, the primary meaning is a joke. The alleged "technical use" is post-joke. Therefore the page move must be reconsidered. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What sythesis? You are not sure if the references used that term? Then either read them and point out the WP:SYNTH or else accept on good faith that they do.  Spinning Spark  15:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will, when I find time to find them. Meanwhile please don't remove tags until the issue resolved. If you want them removed faster, then please provide citations per my request, since you obviouly have a ready access to the references cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point of tagging material just in case it might be OR? You certainly can't remove anything on that basis.  I am not even sure that is within Wikipedia guidelines.  All the sources are (at least partially) available online - just follow the links.  What exactly is it that you want me to quote to you?  Spinning  Spark  16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reviewed one reference and fixed your text accordingly, to decrease the amount of OR. From the PC Mag article cited it is not at all clear whether the term "write only" memory is indeed a technical term or a cute allusion to the joke by the writer. Please notice the "scare quotes" the author uses. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote
Staszek, I edit conflicted with you in the process of rewriting the lede and did not deliberately revert your deletion of the hatnote without comment, but why do you object to it? It is the normal Wikipedia method of dealing with another article of the same name.  Spinning Spark  18:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, if the article title contains "(...)", then you don't have an "article with of same name". Please Disambiguation, esp. subsection "Usage guidelines". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe it did not make it to DYK, compared with other pages or rather dubious notability, vast majority of which was self-nominated. I guess time to work on ban of self-noms, especially in view of the recent scandal. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Use in displays
Sharp Memory LCDs use a write only memory technology. http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/ One use of them is in the Pebble Smartwatch Bizzybody (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Write-once-never-read - we hope
I haven't personally seen it in practice but the computer equivalent of a shoebox full of papers that you hope you will never need but which you keep just in case would qualify.

Actually, I have seen it:

Decades ago I saw a stack of Zip-drive-like cartridges on some IT guy's desk. I asked what they were. They were the journals for the database system. They were his backup system. In theory, you could rebuild the database to any point in time by playing back from the first disk to the disk of the date-stamp you wanted. But you really really really hoped you would never need to do so.

The only practical reason I can think of for using this type of backup rather than one that has faster restores is so if you get subpoenaed (say, in a suit in which you are a third party) you can honestly tell the judge that the cost of compliance is high and would he please stick the requester with the bill. Just a credible threat of this will deter some frivolous requests. A similar benefit would occur if you were required by the government to retain information: If the government requested that you retrieve it, you could honestly explain that it would be "awhile" (days, not hours) before the information was available. Do this enough and they won't pester you as much for information that they don't really need. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice anecdote. Why don't you publish it somewhere and then stick it into Wikipedia, only in another article, Write-only memory (joke), since surely yours is a tongue-in-cheek, finger-crossed, first-in-the-pocket case. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The cartridge-drive anecdote is real, but it doesn't fit well into either is article or the (joke) article, which is why I just added it as a "talk" discussion item. The speculative bit about the subpoenas isn't encyclopedic until it actually happens and the fact that it happens is published.  Once it happens, the particulars of the situation will determine which, if any, article it should be added to.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

See also links
We do not normally include links in the "see also" section that are already included in the body of the article per MOS:SEEALSO. The Write-only memory (joke) page is already linked in the first sentence of the "Hardware uses" section. The disambiguation page link that you are overwriting is not Write-only memory which indeed has only two entries, but is [Write-only]] which has five. But that shouldn't be in the see also section either since disambiguation pages are also not to be included in see also. SpinningSpark 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)