Talk:MEMS

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dab page

I have reverted the conversion of this page into a dab page. Of the two additional entries, one is a redlink, and one is a partial title match, both of which fail the criteria for inclusion at MOS:DAB. What is more, MEMS is a fairly widely used acronym in technology for microelectromechanical systems and is certainly by far the most well known use, so that is where this page should redirect to. If there is going to be a dab page (and there does not seem to be a justification for it at the moment) it should be on a separate page with a hatnote leading to it from micromechanical system. This is the second time this redirect has been restored, the first time was for a similar reason and nothing has changed as far as I can see. SpinningSpark 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Non Acro Use

I agree with the editors from years ago, especially Spark, that a Dab is not correct for this article. However, in thousands of journal articles over the past 5 years, MEMS has become a primary measurement unit in computational complexity and many other fields. Doing a Dab to that would be the same problem as Spark noted, with only one or two disambigs. I've kept Micro at the top as the primary acronym use, vs. the primary actual use as a measurement unit in the article body. If the article itself was moved as a section, it would be difficult to determine where it falls due to the many fields of computational optimization in which the unit is used, but I'm open to suggestions. That would, however, then also argue for a Dab page to all those subsections, which would defeat the two primary uses today as seen in this revision. I'd ask you to at least let interested computing editors complete this important use before moving or changing, per under construction guidelines, and I'll also continue to work on it.Pdecalculus (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdecalculus: I strongly dispute that the memory accesses meaning should have the primary title here per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Both gbooks [1] and scholar [2] return page after page of results with the microelectromechanical meaning. In fact, I cannot find a search term that returns any results in gbooks or scholar for the memory operations meaning. The unit seems barely notable (in WP:Notability terms) and the poor quality of the references provided bears this out.

It is irrelevant that MEMS is an acronym, it is only important that it has a widely used meaning per WP:COMMONNAME. Besides that, the page is misnamed: the memory unit appears always to be written in lowercase and titles should be singular per WP:SINGULAR. Mem already has an article, so the memory access meaning should be at something like mem (computing) with a link from mem (disambiguation). Spinning Spark 02:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still editing the page today. If you do not reply here I will assume that you have no answer to my points and I will move the page. Spinning Spark 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdecalculus: As you have not replied, I have moved the new material to [[mem (computing) and restored MEMS as a redirect to microelectromechanical systems. Spinning Spark 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start and edit war or get bureaucrats involved given your "stong" history of some kind of ownership of this meaning! However, it should be mems(computing) NOT mem. Get it right please, or I'll reverse/undo you.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdecalculus: Please don't take that attitude, there is no reason why we cannot politely and rationally decide on the right title. I am not taking ownership, I have stated my reasons for the move quite rationally above. Would you kindly explain why you think that is wrong. I believe mems is a plural term. Do you not agree? How would you say "one mem"? In any case, do not revert my move, the article was in all caps which is wrong even according to the refs you provided in the article. It may solve the problem if I point out that the title Mems is not currently used. I will create a redirect to mem (computing). Spinning Spark 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]