Talk:IBM 3081

IBM 308x / 3081 stub

The stub named IBM 3081 is cybersquatting in the middle of:
The IBM 308X (Cap X is how both IBM and The U.S. Congress's testimony called it) and the larger IBM Mainframe collection of articles.

While I don't wish to dishonor the "Attention editors" who ask that parenthetical referencing be used, this single article is the chewing gum on the road that's holding back the first of four buses in one lane that needs to merge into a much larger set of articles (pardon the mixed meta_fours, a play on a 1980s-era system that co-existed with the 308X machines).

My intended next step is to simply move all of the text into a section called ==HARVARD/308== so that I can proceed. Pi314m (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The referencing style of each article is independent of other articles. This is explained at WP:CITEVAR. You have not explained why leaving the style of this article as is would impede the writing of any other article.

Also, I have no idea what the statement "My intended next step is to simply move all of the text into a section called ==HARVARD/308== so that I can proceed" means. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The 11 articles for IBM 360 models follow a pattern.

There is a similar pattern for IBM 370 models.

There are similar patterns for successors to the 370 both before and after the 308X machines.

There are links within these articles from one to another, e.g. if a feature first came out on the 360/85 and then on 2 of the 370 models, slight variances in implementations can be had at a click from article to article.

The <ref> information often has links to BitSavers web sites. If this article is to stay, then another article must take its place. The names 3081 and 308X will be part of this. There are several former IBMers now finding one another's OR (Original Research). I was on the receiving end when I said that a most of a certain model ran MFT, which is the case. But the cited references say most did not run MVT; other (cited) material has that most did not run DOS; hence of the 3 choices at that time, that only left MFT.

STILL... saying "most ran MFT" was not acceptable, at least not initially.

The point of this is: an article named IBM_3081 is needed. The current item, at present a stub, should have a role to play, including information about predecessor and successor systems.

The IBM 303X machines had an I/O processor "made" from predecessor machines, namely the 370/158 and the 168. The 3081 was after this "director" idea.

Naming one 3081 article IBM_3081_HARVARD and the other IBM_3081_YALE might seem like a compromise, but what I propose is to simply encapsulate (a computer term) this with the name HARVARD_308, and let the Wiki article that fits in with the others have its place.

(Admittedly, after a while, HARVARD_308 would probably follow the computer term "dead code" and be moved to the TALK page, but in the meantime it would not block readers of 303X from seeing 308X information.) Pi314m (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep this page around as anything other than a redirect. There's no reason not to put all the stuff about the 158 and 168, etc., into IBM 308X#IBM 3081. I'm making this a redirect to that section. Guy Harris (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree this merge was wise, and was an appropriate reason to change the citation style of the content of IBM 3801 that was merged into the new article. However, it is customary to place variants of the {{Merge}} template at the article that is to be merged from and the article that is to be merged into, in case there are issues that the editor proposing the merge did not foresee. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)