Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits

Proposed move
This template is not "part of a series on the ALU"; it's a collection of articles about logic circuits that perform arithmetic operations. An ALU is not the central or top-level topic of this collection; it's just one of the many types of logic circuits that perform arithmetic operations. I propose renaming to "Sidebar ArithmeticLogicCircuits", and changing the caption to "part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits". Lambtron  talk  15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No opposition, so I moved this to "Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits". Lambtron  talk  17:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm primary contributor to this template.
 * [...] it's a collection of articles about logic circuits that perform arithmetic operations [...] This is utterly incorrect statement. The template refers not only to circuitry but also to a related arithmetical theory around it, without which it wouldn't be possible to make ALU operational. Therefore no reasons to rename it to the «XYZLogicCircuits».
 * [...] part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits [...] I would rather elaborate the title of template that it links topics related to the ALU, but not just truncating it to the circuits.
 * In general I also see no point of removing image. You justification is vague. Elaborate it please. DAVRONOV A.A.  ✉ ⚑ 22:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander. "Utterly incorrect" seems a bit strong -- and unwarranted since this template is, in fact, substantially focused on digital circuits that perform arithmetic functions (e.g. adders, multiplier/dividers, CPU/GPU and, yes, ALU). I agree that arithmetic theory is also covered, which just reinforces my point: ALU is not the central topic of this series; it's just one of many subjects covered here. It makes no sense whatsoever to call this a "series on the ALU" when that's clearly not what it is. Regarding images, I see many other similar templates without images but, if you think it needs one, perhaps something math-related would be more relevant and immediately recognizable (e.g. sigma char)? Lambtron  talk  00:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] which just reinforces my point: ALU is not the central topic of this series The linked articles are still either directly or closely (like supplemental «See also» and «theory») related to the ALU (a set of circuits making it up). I propose to re-title it to «ALU related theory and components articles», or something like and rename template back to the ALUSidebar. It would be much more accurate.
 * [...] I see many other similar templates without images but This is clearly invalid reason to justify removal.
 * [...] if you think it needs one, perhaps something math-related As per said above the symbol of ALU which often appear in schematics and which components the template is linking to it's the best to keep the original image in place so I demand to return it back unless you find much better image which would clearly distinguish operations over integers and nothing else.  DAVRONOV A.A.  ✉ ⚑ 21:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's true that a few of the linked articles are "directly or closely related to the ALU", but a great many others are distant relatives which fail to expand readers' knowledge of ALUs in any way. It appears that the real purpose of this template is to shine a light on arithmetic circuits in general and on associated theory -- and it does a good job of that. And as a result, "ALU" clearly does not belong in the template name or title, because it makes no sense to single out or elevate ALUs above the myriad other, equally important topics covered here.

Please don't make "demands". As I mentioned earlier, I'm willing to consider alternatives if you feel the template must have an image. Please note that many similar templates exist which have no image and do not seem any less effective or useful as a result. Personally, I think that in many cases, images are unnecessary embellishments that do little more than enlarge and add clutter to articles, but I defer to your judgement in this matter. I would ask, though, that when considering appropriate images, you please keep in mind that ALUs are not the central topic of the template. Lambtron  talk  23:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the pages where this template is substituted in. Did you notice that all the pages under theory such as Binary number don't substitute this template, but pages such as Adder (electronics) do? This makes me lean towards the ALU image shown here. I also disagree in the distinction between "arithmetic logic circuits" and "arithmetic logic unit", the sidebar as a navigational aid is covering topics of an arithmetic logic unit on a whole, not just each individual circuit. In fact, the inclusion of articles such as "two's complement" under "theory" is what points me in this direction of the whole topic. As a random unrelated example, if we had a template sidebar called "Car parts" but it listed "History of the automotive industry", we might want to rename that template to a more general "Car". I see the same thing here renaming from "arithmetic logic CIRCUITS" to "arithmetic logic UNIT" (the purpose of why we make arithmetic logic circuits, for the most part). Leijurv (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, let's ping out on that. --  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] he sidebar as a navigational aid is covering topics of an arithmetic logic unit on a whole, not just each individual circuit. [...] As being primary contributor to the sidebar content I'm totally agree with this. All the links listed in the sider bar and sub bar are in fact originally attributed to the ALU, not just circuits, even though they are relevant to thousands of other's circuits sets.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a leap of logic to conclude that ALU is the central topic because of where the template appears, or because the template links to two's complement -- a numeric representation used by numerous arithmetic logic circuits. Furthermore, the template covers topics which clearly are outside the scope of "an arithmetic logic unit on a whole" -- topics which are relevant to a general survey of arithmetic logic circuits. Finally, it's simply untrue that ALUs are "the purpose of why we make arithmetic logic circuits"; a great many arithmetic logic circuits have little in common with ALUs other than the fact that they are built from logic gates. Lambtron  talk  13:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] the template covers topics which clearly are outside the scope of "an arithmetic logic unit on a whole" [...] Hardly decent reason to justify your edits. The template covers a list of topics which are related to a wide range of things but it wasn't intended to be named or imag-ed after them in first place. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument but we do agree about this: the template covers a list of topics which are related to a wide range of things. Some of those topics are related to ALUs and others aren't, but all are related to arithmetic logic circuits. I don't know if this was the original intent when the template was created, but it's the current reality. Lambtron  talk  18:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two's complement was a demonstration that the template is more than purely a list of arithmetic logic circuits, so it's an inflexible mindset to say that the template must therefore be titled "arithmetic logic circuits". it's simply untrue that ALUs are "the purpose of why we make arithmetic logic circuits" Oh I bet you were able to understand what I was trying to say though :) And I actually do think that probably 99% of arithmetic logic circuits that exist in the world are in ALUs. Leijurv (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No need for personal attacks here. Lambtron  talk  18:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? I do not think it is a personal attack to suggest that your approach comes off as inflexible, I was suggesting in good faith that the topics covered are broader than you may have realized. Sorry if the semantics of that suggestion touched a nerve. Leijurv (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to follow the points of view. My first impression that this discussion is about a trivial difference. If the only question is whether to spell out "arithmetic logic unit" of to simply write "ALU" then I would go with spelling it out. Otherwise can you each summarize what you think the template should be named and what it should cover? Constant314 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, this discussion thread is about the caption that appears on the template. Originally "Part of a series on the ALU", I renamed it "Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits" per my proposal and reasoning at the top of this thread. Objections to the rename were raised after the fact. I, and those who object to the renaming, think this is a non-trivial difference. So far I'm not convinced that the current caption is a bad choice or that the original caption was appropriate. So the open question is this: is the current caption appropriate and, if not, what should it be? Options: retain current caption; restore original caption; change to some other caption. Lambtron  talk  19:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for summarizing. I would suggest that a template's caption is relatively unimportant compared to the actual collection of articles that it ties together.  From the point of view of a typical WP user, either caption works. But, I agree that I like the current caption better.  "Part of a series on the ALU" sounds overly specialized compared to "Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits".Constant314 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...]"Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits" would be incorrect as the mathematical theory is linked in too. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] caption is relatively unimportant compared [...] Wrong. The title and caption clear a way to argue over addition and removal of links and content that might have been related previously or even to remove the template itself from article's it's linked from. Therefore I conclude that both are arguably important. Knowing also that Labtron is among major contributors to the ALU article I'm strongly suspicious of his true intent here.
 * [...] "Part of a series on the ALU" sounds overly specialized compared [...] It's specialized for a reason: it was named after its purpose to collect ALU related articles' links, not after currently listed ones; and I oppose to rename it to anything else as it wasn't intended for that in first place and no good reason to do that was given whatsoever. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Here is a of changes made by  to the . Among things being discussed are the values of   and   props and the name of the page itself. [...] Otherwise can you each summarize what you think [...] Sure. I entirely stand for the original version (including last fixes made to the category tags) naming and name of the page. As being creator of the sidebar I've envisioned its only purpose in aiding and facilitating in navigation over ALU related topics after which it was named and after which appropriate image was placed. Seeking consensus I ain't agree on anything else until very profound reasoning is given (excluding compromise offered here).  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I could explain my (admittedly silly) example / analogy / metaphor of a car: Imagine there were a template called just "Cars" and it had links to "Gasoline engine", "Alternator", "Gas tank", "Car seat" etc, but also to "Car manufacturing practices" and "Assembly line manufacturing". Then someone removed the picture of the car from the top of the template and renamed it to "Car parts". That would be a little weird because while the car is made up of car parts, and the template does list some things that are car parts, the template is about the concept of a car on a whole, and it links to some things that are not actually car parts, but instead relate to how they fit together and work together. That's why I think that the ALU image should be restored as well as the previous name (it could be spelled out however, "Part of a series on the Arithmetic Logic Unit" instead of "ALU"). Leijurv (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Your hypothetical template was renamed from "car" (arithmetic logic circuits) to "car parts" (ALU), which you think is wrong (and I agree). But that's the opposite of what happened here. You seem to be arguing that the current name is correct. Lambtron  talk  21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not. I am contesting this edit that you made, I think it should be undone. In the analogy, the "car" is the ALU, which is made up of individual electrical circuits ("car parts"). Calling it just the circuits does it a disservice because of the articles that describe how these circuits work together to do math, such as the links to Kochanski multiplication and FPU and Division algorithm, as well as the intricacies of how numbers are represented in these systems, like Two's complement. These operate at a higher level of abstraction than individual electronic circuits, so that's why I think the template should describe the ALU, which is a combination of these circuits into more than the sum of the individual parts. Leijurv (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but ALU is a subset of "arithmetic logic circuits", just as "car parts" is a subset of car. You seem to be arguing that the scope of the current caption is too narrow, but by switching to a caption with even narrower scope -- ALU -- the problem will be solved. BTW, an ALU is a unique circuit; typically it is not implemented as a combination of adder, subtracter, and other circuits as that would negatively impact both performance and real estate. Lambtron  talk  22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's too narrow for the reason that while an ALU may be a circuit, it, as a concept, is composed of circuits that work together for the purpose of an integrated calculation unit, that a CPU relies upon. In other words, I disagree with the idea that since an ALU is itself technically a circuit, that means that everything relating to an ALU will also relate to circuits as a general topic. Because an ALU is more than just an arithmetic logic circuit, it's the result of combining them into a final entity that does useful work for the CPU, therefore it also relates to that combination, such as the links to Division algorithm or FPU. Basically, I have no problem with a "Arithmetic logic circuits" template / category existing, my hangup is that when I actually look at the pages listed in this template, all of them relate to an ALU, but only some of them relate to just arithmetic logic circuits. We might want a different template. Like, I don't see a reason to "See also GPU" on "arithmetic logic circuits" but I definitely do on "arithmetic logic unit". I think the title should go back to matching the content (and image), then we can talk about maybe reorganizing all this into what is simultaneously a wider and narrower scope, in a way that I don't really think is helpful. Perhaps we could add Category:Arithmetic logic circuits in the categories section? Leijurv (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] We might want a different template [...] I'm going to reinforce this point. It's the best to make a different template for arithmetic circuits (AC) for those who wants to navigate over "arithmetic circuits"-only by using templates like navbox as basis. It's obvious that ALU is a superset for the AC. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] but ALU is a subset of "arithmetic logic circuits" [...] It's certainly not, not to say that attempt to match name based on the links inside the template is unappropriate and I oppose it. It's leap logic to justify matching title and caption by the current set of links.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An ALU is an arithmetic logic circuit, but an arithmetic logic circuit is not necessarily an ALU. That makes ALU a subset of arithmetic logic circuits. Lambtron  talk  14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I too have no problem with an ALU template existing, and envision it as something quite different from this template. For exampe it would exclude circuits such as adders, subtractors, multipliers and dividers because ALUs are not composed of these in any way, physically or conceptually. If kept, higher level functions such as MAC, FPU, GPU, multiplication and division would be moved to see_also or to a new "applications" section. Lambtron  talk  14:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I too have no problem with an ALU template existing, and envision it as something quite different from this template. I mean. Like. Then make your own template instead of commandeering this one?? I don't understand where you're coming from honestly. It seems like you agree that there's no reason why there shouldn't be two different templates, unless I'm misreading.
 * An ALU is an arithmetic logic circuit, but an arithmetic logic circuit is not necessarily an ALU. That makes ALU a subset of arithmetic logic circuits. Again, while this is true, I don't agree with your implied next statement which is more or less that the contents of an ALU template would then be a subset of the contents of an arithmetic logic circuits template. Why do you think that follows? As a higher level component, the ALU relates closely to the next-higher-level component (in most cases) which is the CPU. Would you also say that the set of articles belonging on a "CPU" sidebar is a subset of electronic circuits?
 * Furthermore, I'm not quite sure what you mean by ALUs are not composed of these in any way, physically or conceptually. An argument could certainly be made for "physically", but not for "conceptually". I mean, sure, you won't have an adder and a subtractor, you'd have one adder with $$C_{in}$$ and $$B_{inv}$$ toggled on for subtraction mode. Et cetera. But conceptually an ALU is most certainly describable as a muxed set of arithmetic or logical operators, no? This seems to be completely substantiated by the ALU article, it has an opcode that selects bitwise or arithmetic operators to be performed on the inputs? Leijurv (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's becoming rather a lengthy and a bit ❌ talk here. This would make it harder for new parties to enter discussion. I think it would be enough to state that this template is NOT purposed for the arithmetic logic circuits (ALC) alone and justifying its renaming by set of links listed inside, let alone removing the lead image is rather frivolous and misleading and cannot be accepted. We have to reach WP:CONSENSUS, not make never-ending discussions. [...] Again, while this is true, [...] I suggest to read my next reply below.


 * [...] makes ALU a subset of arithmetic logic circuits. [...] False. And makes no point here either as this template was not created to tie up links on ALCs alone. Ain't gonna repeat it once again. Every single definition of the ALU tells us that it consist of more than one ALC and includes MUX (is not ALC) used to select kind of operation. . Checkout Figure 0 for reference.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to step back and acknowledge that everybody wants the best experience for the users and that everybody is making a good faith effort towards that goal. The descriptions “Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits” and “Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits arithmetic logic units” have substantial overlap, but neither entirely contains the other. The Venn diagram is impossible. From the point of view of a user who is looking at the caption, it doesn’t matter. Everything after “arithmetic logic” is noise to the typical user. Either caption is equally likely to be useful. It is specious to argue that some article cannot be placed under either of these captions. Any article, for example, Kochanski multiplication can be listed under either caption as long as it is useful to the user. It comes down to user preference. Have a vote. Let the majority win. Go on to do useful work. I do feel that “ALU” should be spelled out and that there should be no picture because the template already uses enough space in the lede section. Constant314 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Accordingly, I propose the following solution: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambtron (talk • contribs)
 * [...] should be no picture because the template already uses enough space. [...] seems to be pretty compact to me, compared to the current one. It would be evident how little space it takes in the ALU and how much when it's expanded in the Adder articles if it's restored back. I'm fine with removing caption, but removing image would make a disservice to the users (to make it clear: removal of the image may exclude caption, but not otherwise). [...] Have a vote. Let the majority win. [...] WP:VOTE? No way.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is Disputed here?

 * To make it clear, I kindly remind to all (non-)participating parties that we are currently discussing the following:
 * Name of the Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits page renamed by — previously
 * Value of the name field of the
 * Value of the pretitle and title — or Caption
 * Value of the image


 * Please take a note. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

New proposal
Proposal: Rename to "part of a series on arithmetic logic" and continue to omit an image.

Explanation: This name covers ALUs (per Alexander_Davronov and Leijurv) and all other arithmetic logic circuits (per Lambtron) and leverages the idea presented by Constant314 that "everything after 'arithmetic logic' is noise". Omission of an image prevents the template from using too much space in the lede section (per Lambtron and Constant314). Lambtron  talk  15:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot support this option because it sounds like and adjective and a noun whereas both “arithmetic” and “logic” are intended as adjectives. So, “arithmetic logic something.” Even though the something is noise it serves a grammatical function.  The choices for something seem to be either “units” or “circuits.”  Maybe “implementations” might be an alternative.Constant314 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do "part of a series on arithmetic logic units" with no image? Leijurv (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Arithmetic logic implementations" seems reasonable to me. Lambtron  talk  19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: The proposed name seems like a good compromise. It accounts for 's argument that "arithmetic logic circuitry" is too specific, and for the concerns of and myself that "arithmetic logic unit" is overly specialized, and for Constant314's idea that anything more than "arithmetic logic" is effectively just "noise". I also agree with Constant314's assessment that the template should not have an image because it would use too much space in article ledes. However, I would agree to having an image if the template is redesigned for use at the bottom of articles instead of the top. Lambtron   talk  19:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I agree with Constant314's oppose: I cannot support this option because it sounds like and adjective and a noun whereas both “arithmetic” and “logic” are intended as adjectives Leijurv (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "arithmetic logic implementations" per Constant314's suggestion? Lambtron  talk  19:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I... am neutral on that. I would not support nor oppose that. I do oppose "circuits" though, so, relative to the current state, I would weakly support. The reasoning is that while implementations is neutral / ambivalent, it doesn't quite convey that this is particularly talking about how they are implemented in computers. Leijurv (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would accept "implementations" too, but oppose "units". Not all arithmetic circuits reside in computers and ALUs. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's specialized for a reason: it was named after its purpose to collect ALU related articles' links, not after currently listed ones; and I oppose to rename it to anything else as it wasn't intended for that in first place and no good reason to do that was given whatsoever. I still very much agree with axonov said here.
 * So, I believe that this is a bit of a circular argument you're making actually. "This template should list arithmetic circuits" => "This template should be called 'arithmetic logic circuits'" => "This template should list arithmetic circuits". Assuming either of those is circular, so I don't think it's fair to assume as a prior that this template's purpose is to list arithmetic circuits. It was originally intended as part of a series on the ALU, which is still betrayed in the See alsos and the Division parts, et cetera. It, quite clearly to my eyes, is very much actually about arithmetic logic as implemented in computers, from the lowest level (circuits used to build ALUs), to FPUs and GPUs, to high level algorithms that run on top of them... Leijurv (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgive my bluntness, but the original intended purpose is irrelevant. What matters now is what this template is today: way more than a collection of links to ALU-related articles. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  20:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgiven. Forgive my bluntness, but I was using that as a means to an end to demonstrate that the contents of the template hasn't changed from that purpose, only the name has. See: which is still betrayed in the See alsos and the Division parts, et cetera. It, quite clearly to my eyes, is very much actually about arithmetic logic as implemented in computers, from the lowest level (circuits used to build ALUs), to FPUs and GPUs, to high level algorithms that run on top of them. So while Not all arithmetic circuits reside in computers and ALUs. is true, I don't agree with it as a reason to have this template be named just "circuits". To bring out my old friend (the metaphor from earlier), just because crankshafts are used in more than just cars doesn't mean that we can't have a "car parts" template that lists "crankshaft". Leijurv (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with using "implementations" instead of "circuits", and am glad to hear you're not opposed to that. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] but the original intended purpose is irrelevant. What matters now is what this template is today: Why did you make  whose summary states: «(rmv image (not representative of general topic); changed title to match content and purpose)» then?  What's the purpose you were talking about? Did you know the purpose of this template before It was created by me? Why is it irrelevant? What's this template is today is subject to this long-lasting dispute and may not be taken as basis for justification for the disputed matters.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean you no disrespect and I really do appreciate the work you have put into this project. As I see it, the purpose of this template is to provide navigation between related articles as explained here. The articles in this collection are indeed related, but a significant number are not related to ALUs, so it's neither accurate nor helpful to readers to call this "a series on the ALU". An easy and effective way to to avoid this problem is to call the collection exactly what it is, because that allows readers to know, from a quick glance at the title, what sort of information they can expect to find. Can you suggest some other title that might satisfy this goal? <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron   talk  20:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * a significant number are not related to ALUs I've given a few examples of articles on this sidebar that I don't think relate to circuits, might you give some that aren't conceptually related to ALUs? I've heard your position: it would exclude circuits such as adders, subtractors, multipliers and dividers because ALUs are not composed of these in any way, physically or conceptually and replied to it, can you explain further? Axonov even cited and quoted five sources saying that ALUs are conceptually a set of arithmetic logic circuits (with a mux at the end choosing which operation's output is to be used). I have to admit I'm baffled, can you explain how an ALU is not comprised, on a conceptual level, of circuits such as adders and subtractors et cetera? Leijurv (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to ignore answering direct questions?
 * [...] but a significant number are not related to ALUs [...] It's illogical to argue in favor of disputed changes in this way.
 * [...] Can you suggest some [...] Nice try. 😉 There is no problem in first place. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose both caption renaming and ommiting the image as it fails to meet purpose of the sidebar, nor does make it discernible:
 * The name is made pointless due to fatal grammatic mistake.
 * [...] image ... using too much space [...]
 * [...] template should not have an image because it would use too much space in article ledes [...] Allright, I think the sidebar on the right (Cyborg) will tell you much more than words alone. A great number of navigational sidebars that are used in much more rich and diverse environment have no problem with lead image: Marxism, Maya civilization, Bosniaks, Longlat, Corporate law, Tort law, Anglicanism, Water salinity . I conclude there is no problem with the space, size, image itself and sidebar relatively to articles it is placed in either. Removing the image will improve nothing but do the opposite. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Another proposal
Proposal: Rename back to "part of a series on arithmetic logic units", but without the previous image

Explanation: Image was too big, looking back in history. Could be fixed, but honestly I don't think it's necessary to have it. ALU acronym won't make much sense. "arithmetic logic units" could be linked, or unlinked, I don't mind either way. Leijurv (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nom Leijurv (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too specialized, as noted above by myself and Constant314. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  19:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "arithmetic logic implementations"? <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  19:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied above. I'm neutral. Leijurv (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have missed it, but I don't remember constant314 saying that "arithmetic logic units" was undesirable. Leijurv (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Part of a series on the ALU" sounds overly specialized. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk
 * Thank you, my mistake. Leijurv (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose both caption renaming and ommiting the image as it fails to meet purpose of the sidebar:
 * ALUSidebar is about ALU as design of functional device. What ALUs would stand for? A line of ALU devices?
 * Image omitting is poorly backed up as per opinions given here, here and here. Want to resize it to make it perfect? Go ahead, use Module:InfoboxImage, but do not omit it. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet another proposal
Proposal: Rename to "part of a series on arithmetic logic implementations" with no image.

Explanation: Per above discussions that suggest this may lead to consensus. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Constant314 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Tentatively noncommittally neutral ish. I support this over the current state of the template, but would oppose relative to "arithmetic logic unit". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment [...] that suggest this may lead to consensus [...] Please refrain from making personal remarks or attempt to end discussion unilaterally except of withdrawing all your proposals and changes made to this template. I'm going to call more parties to come and express their impartial opinion over here. It would require a few more opinions and a bit more time to be given to reach consensus.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal remarks? Attempt to end discussion unilaterally? Please clarify, as I have no idea what you're talking about. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron  talk  21:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose both caption renaming and ommiting the image as it fails to meet purpose of the sidebar:
 * The implementations of ... what? ALUs, ALCs, whatever? This misleads users and clearly opposite of what ALUSidebar was made after: the ALU (as central topic), "combinational circuit", micro-device, concepts about its functioning, operations, well known implementations, schematics, history; etc etc etc.
 * Image omitting is poorly backed up as per opinions given here, here and here. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Arithmetic logic implementations" in this case means arithmetic logic circuits and algorithms. That's a bit verbose (which is probably why suggested just "implementations"), but I wouldn't object to spelling it out. <span style="font-family:Neuropol,Verdana;font-weight:500;color:#000;letter-spacing:0.1em;text-shadow:#aac 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Lambtron   talk  18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Note on third opinion request
I've removed the request in regards to this page at the third opinion board, as by my count it would be at least the fifth opinion by now. Please consider a request for comment if it's not possible to come to agreement through discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)