User talk:Guy Harris/Archives/2016/11

CPU cache terminology
Why have you removed the note about the "CPU cache" term ? This term is not a common term between experts and in literature. I am a super-expert in this field with many patents (you can check it by reading, for example, Cache memory completely written only by me)

The "Cache" is a function associated to a memory and not to a specific user. This function can be used from a CPU, or in shared cache, from a group of CPUs or Cores or Nodes or associated also to a group of "Remote memories" in NUMA systems (see Cache memory) or from any processor that can access to a main memory, like a GPU processor for instance or also from a completely system like SMP, therefore the term "CPU cache" is too much restrictive.

In an encyclopedia as Wiki the terms are to be corrected or at least mention what is the correct name, otherwise the reader may have a incorrect information.

p.s.

In CPU cache" are described two other kinds of the cache - TLB with virtual addressing and the Trace cache. These are different caches and have nothing to do with the CPU cache/Cache memory and therefore must described in the appropriate article (or at least change the title of this article).Ferry24.Milan (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question is in my edit comment. You don't throw some long explanation of why some term rather than another term should be used into the article itself, you put something into the talk page saying, for example, "CPU cache" is the wrong term, you should call it "cache memory", suggesting that the page be renamed. Guy Harris (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply: the term "CPU cache" is not in itself wrong, it's just inaccurate. My suggestion was not to correct by changing the title, but to put a note to inform the reader that it is a little-used name and to cite what is the current name used (with, of course, references to justify this !). That's all. Why can not you do?

This solution has already been done sometimes in Wiki with no problem. My suggestion is only to do this. Thanks Ferry24.Milan (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A problem should be reported if an uncommon term for something, rather than a more common term for the same thing, is used as the title of a page about that thing. If, instead of proposing a rename, somebody dumped a bunch of talk-page stuff complaining about the use of the uncommon term, that's the wrong response.


 * The correct solution is to propose, on the talk page, that the page be renamed - or to just boldly rename the page. Why can't you do that? Guy Harris (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't rename the page. Please discuss first at the article talk page. If you move it without discussion and consensus to move, I will move it back. I want to discuss your proposed title change but I will not do it here - this is not the proper place. It is up to you to start a discussion at talk:CPU cache. Jeh (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the last time I try. My suggestion is to change, at least, the first phrase "A CPU cache is a hardware used ...." with "A CPU cache (better known as "Cache memory") is a hardware used ....". That's okay ? Ferry24.Milan (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Too much complicated for me - I give up. My suggestion was not to change the name, but mention only the best known name was Cache memory.


 * If it's better known as "cache memory", then why isn't that the name of the page, as per WP:COMMONNAME? Guy Harris (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferry: The reason we don't want to discuss it here is that this discussion is likely out of sight of most of the people who might be concerned. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and effective collaboration depends on participation. Guy Harris and I are not the only people interested in the CPU cache page. Only about 30 people are watching this page, while almost 300 are watching talk:CPU cache.

I find it strange that somebody who has many patents in a highly technical field finds it "too complicated" to start a discussion in the appropriate place - which by the way is only as complicated as starting this discussion here was. But I will help you. Go to CPU cache, click the "talk" tab in the top margin, then click the "+" sign to start a new section on the talk page.

Or, heck, you can just click here.

Either way, type a short descriptive title for your new section in the "Subject/title" box and then type your proposal in the main edit window. You could copy and paste it from your first post here, subject to a bit of editing for context. We hope to see you there. Jeh (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)