Talk:Zilog Z180
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Z80182 page were merged into Zilog Z180. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The merger of Z80182 into this article was unproposed and is inappropriate. The Z80182 article was kept at AfD but the nom has decided to unilaterally merge it anyway without any discussion and is now trying to use the rationale "inadequate notabiltiy for this obsolete commercial product to have a standalone product" [1] The "merged" version does not contain as much information as the standalone article and the rationale given makes absolutely no sense. We have a history of keeping these types of articles separate, a perfect example of this is the Intel 80186 (one of a huge number of these type of articles). The Intel 80186 like the Z80182 was mainly used in embedded applications. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is inappropriate to change well formed references [2] into external links when "merging" [3] in order to be able to keep {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} templates on the Zilog Z180 article. Considering the nom removed the reference from the Z80182 article [4] shortly before sending it to AfD [5] (where it was kept) I can't say I'm terribly surprised. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per the AfD comments and the concerns raised, I have restored the article pending a full discussion regarding a merge. The AfD's "keep" result does not appear to support the claim of a lack of notability, which was the justification for the merger. --Ckatzchatspy 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:PRODUCT, I don't believe a discussion reguarding a merge is necessary. That guideline says that products need to meet notability requirements to have coverage, and suggests that stub articles like this one be in the company's main article. In this case, I'm just rolling-up the product family to leave the main Zilog article undisturbed. The arguments provided at the AfD did not demonstrate the product's notability, and the article still does not show the notability of its subject. The removed external link mentioned above was 404; the comments on the edit reference say as much. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are not performing a full or proper merge. The link you removed before initiating the AfD should have been handled per WP:DEADLINK#Repairing but in removing it you were able to claim the article to be unreferenced. This particular link was used as a reference in the article – we didn't always use cite.php; external links used to be the most common way to note references, ie the note on {{more footnotes}} and {{nofootnotes}}.
You still do not have consensus for your change and you seem to be edit warring. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)- I don't need concensus for this change; it's by policy. Searching the Zilog site for the part number "Z180" results in no hits. Searching it for the same keyword does not result in a new version of this document. As such, it was removed -- per WP:DEADLINK#Repairing. That does leave the article completely unreferenced. If you feel something is missing from the merge, feel free to correct it on the target page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you do need consensus and no, it is not policy. I find it odd your search on the Zilog site turned up nothing because I got plenty of hits there and elsewhere when I searched for Z80182. You also appear to be misleading the discussion here as I've already restored and repaired the reference that you removed prior to your nomination of Z80182 for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need concensus for this change; it's by policy. Searching the Zilog site for the part number "Z180" results in no hits. Searching it for the same keyword does not result in a new version of this document. As such, it was removed -- per WP:DEADLINK#Repairing. That does leave the article completely unreferenced. If you feel something is missing from the merge, feel free to correct it on the target page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are not performing a full or proper merge. The link you removed before initiating the AfD should have been handled per WP:DEADLINK#Repairing but in removing it you were able to claim the article to be unreferenced. This particular link was used as a reference in the article – we didn't always use cite.php; external links used to be the most common way to note references, ie the note on {{more footnotes}} and {{nofootnotes}}.
- Per WP:PRODUCT, I don't believe a discussion reguarding a merge is necessary. That guideline says that products need to meet notability requirements to have coverage, and suggests that stub articles like this one be in the company's main article. In this case, I'm just rolling-up the product family to leave the main Zilog article undisturbed. The arguments provided at the AfD did not demonstrate the product's notability, and the article still does not show the notability of its subject. The removed external link mentioned above was 404; the comments on the edit reference say as much. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no real idea why Mikeblas removed a number of perfectly working reference links (they're primary, for sure, but that merely means one should look for secondary sources too, not delete those); I've reverted that. --LjL (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which when it comes to databooks and such, they are peer reviewed and are considered to be reliable sources. For articles about CPUs and components, the databooks and datasheets are usually preferred over 3rd party documentation as they are usually more reliable. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I removed them (again) because they're unrelated to the article. They're about other products than the one here; this article is about the Z180 CPU, not other products from the company. Databooks are primary sources, since they're from the company about their own product. I'm challenging the notability of the subject of this article, and third-party references would establish notability of this product as well as validate the claims made by the primary source. See WP:N, WP:REF, and WP:EL for more information about the standards Wikipeida articles are meant to meet. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
When was this processor released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.17.25 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)