Talk:Ada Lovelace (microarchitecture)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer graphics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blackwell is just a flimsy rumor

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@42.190.135.177: That Blackwell is the name of the successor architecture is just a flimsy rumor from one line of text from leaked data. It is not confirmed. It should not be in the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tables with exact same info for all items/products

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand why some people insist on making tables inhumanly wide/unreadable and listing the same information for all items, instead of moving it out and showing it as a simple bullet list. Go try to read your tables on a smartphone and see how it feels. It's asinine and serves no purpose. There's no WP rule to list everything under the sun in the table.

Go check tables in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors see? A lot easier to read. @SHJX No gonna start an edit war on that, suit yourself. I just want to emphasize how illogical/unreasonable/unreadable is to list the same info for all the included products. And, no, making the table smaller using font-size: 85% does not solve/address this. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This particular article used to just contain a short list of products without details in the products section, take a look at this page revision: Special:PermaLink/1146213367.

Then a sockpuppet account came and copied/added the Geforce 40 series, Workstation, Datacenter full list tables to the product section, essentially turning it into a duplicate of tables at already existing articles like GeForce 40 series and Quadro. You probably know who I'm talking about here... No wonder the table is so bloated with common information that should stay out of the table rather than in it!

I'm probably going to change it back to that short list again, adding a "see also" link to the list articles that contain the full table.

Also another great example of a well-made list to check out is the AMD GPUs list! : List of AMD graphics processing units. Take a look at the various columns on "Radeon 400 series" onwards. You'll notice several columns have been combined like release date & price, architecture & fab and memory type & speed, to increase the efficient use of the table space and reduce width. We really could use that here couldn't we?

P.s. I tried suggesting the use of templates at Talk:List of Nvidia graphics processing units in order to reduce duplication of table content and all the problems associated with it, but unfortunately that's been put on hold pretty much, as there is an unresolved dispute over there regarding what information should and should not be included in the tables, thus making all the tables already out of sync with the tables on the GPU generation / architecture articles. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic