Talk:Cache memory

Moved to draft namespace

Hi, I have moved this article from cache memory to Draft:Cache memory because there are many articles linking to that title and I think this new article needs some more discussion and changes before it should replace any current mainspace articles. Particularly it does not follow English Wikipedia style guides and conventions like WP:PROSE.

And I think it's too long for a single article, probably best to split and merge parts of it into multiple existing articles, like Cache coherence, Cahce coherency protocol, CPU cache. -- intgr [talk] 16:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

[Below comment copied from User talk:intgr#Cache memory -- intgr [talk] 15:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)]

I suggest to remove the content of "CPU cache" because it is a subset of a new the description “Cache memory” and to redirect "CPU cache" to "Cache memory" - Ferry24.Milan (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ferry24.Milan: I moved your comment here to keep the related discussion in one place. In order to replace the existing article, you need a consensus for it on the Talk:CPU cache discussion page. I think it would be a hard sell because typically articles should grow incrementally, as that allows for a quicker feedback loop. Such wholesale replacements are generally only done when the original article is very bad, which is not the case here. Without even a detailed reading, this draft doesn't follow English Wikipedia style guidelines; it contains too many lists, is frequently too technical, and is probably too large for a single article, so in some ways it would be a step back.

I think the best approach instead is to facilitate feedback on the discussion pages of current articles and merge the draft into other articles piece by piece, where appropriate; not replace as a whole. We already have multiple articles on the topics this draft discusses, like Cache Coherence, CPU cache, Cache algorithms and probably more. -- intgr [talk] 15:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

after first impression

Editors with better knowledge about a subject, why not to divide article to smaller articles to make it readable? and I didn's saw section: History of cache memory? and at least one picture about real memorychip would make this clearer Aguilus (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I too was looking for the historical perspective but couldn't find it. :-/ 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:6F81 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Blank-and-redirect

This article is in poor shape. It violates Wikipedia's style, has large sections of poor English, and is too long and detailed. Much of its contents is a series of bulleted lists (but with dashes instead of proper bullets). There is some good content here, but cleaning this up would be a large amount of work.

And that work doesn't need to be done, because we already have equivalent content. The topics this page covers were already covered by CPU cache, Cache coherence, and the various pages describing cache coherency protocols before this page was created. Even the title doesn't make sense. The introduction tries to claim that this is the correct term for a CPU cache, but this is original research, and simply wrong. Adding the word "memory" to "cache" doesn't make it refer to CPU caches. It is redundant as well, in the same way the phrase "cash money" is. In computing, a cache can't be anything but memory.

Looking back in the history, the page seems to be largely the work of a single user, who brought it from the Draft: space into its current location, and then started updated redirects to point to it, away from existing articles (e.g. Cache coherence). They also started adding links to the top of what should have been more detailed pages, e.g. Cache coherence has a link to this page's cache coherence section claiming that this page has "a more complete and detailed description", but the more complete and detailed description really belongs on the page for the specific topic. Presumably these were good faith edits, but the result was disruptive. It led to duplicate content, and redirects tended to lead away from high quality pages to this one.

I'm blanking this page and redirecting it to Cache_(computing), which talks about caches in general and is the closest match for this page's title. I'm also going to edit away the redirects that point at this page.

There is some salvageable content here, specifically the diagrams for the cache coherency protocols look better than most of the ones on the individual pages for the cache coherency protocols. If any other editors are interested, it would be great if the usable bits from here could find there way to the existing pages that cover these topics.

Wingedsubmariner (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wingedsubmariner: Thanks, I agree with everything. If we want to retain this content ("some salvageable content here") then this could be moved back to 'Draft:' namespace or perhaps even to Wikibooks or some other Wikimedia project. (Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cache memory it's OK to keep it as draft). -- intgr [talk] 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

[Note: Related discussion at User talk:Wingedsubmariner#Redirection changed to "CPU cache"]

There was a decision made to keep the draft, in order that it be worked on, and then added to existing article. Not simply moving this poorly crafted article into the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

History is missing

Article does not mention hardware milestones in cache memory adoption or penetration. This has large implications in the development of algorithms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.124.87 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)