Talk:MoSys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 7, 2020Articles for deletionDeleted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 24, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that academics called MoSys's 1T-SRAM a misnomer with "a catchy name"?

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • Symbol question.svg This is more of a preliminary review with the full one to follow, but right now I have an issue with the hook. Specifically, it seems to be reliant on tech knowledge and may not easily be understandable to general readers, especially with the mention of "pseudo-static" RAM. Perhaps people may be vaguely familiar with what RAM is, but not what pseudo-static RAM is. Maybe a new direction is needed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DigitalIceAge: I also have to note that a QPQ is still needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure on procedural grounds as a QPQ was not provided within seven days of the nomination despite reminders. The nomination can resume once a QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or condensed: ALT1b: ... that academics called MoSys's 1T-SRAM a misnomer with "a catchy name"? DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose we can go with ALT1b. It's not a super amazing hook but I think it's better than the original. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol voting keep.svg Article meets DYK requirements and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. Either ALT1 or ALT1b are acceptable, though I have a slight preference for ALT1b since it's shorter and has less links (I fear that the mention of the GameCube and Wii could direct readers to those article instead). I can't access the source for that hook fact so assuming good faith here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol question.svg We need a more exact citation for Academics called the name a misnomer: "[1-transistor static RAM] is not really possible, but it makes for a catchy name". Who, specifically, said that? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @RoySmith: Okay, I have expanded the sentence to include all three names. Hopefully that's better? I read the discussion and I'm not seeing the issue with the hook itself. The problem Amakuru had with the French protests hook is that the quote was delivered in the passive voice without attribution. My hook is in the active voice with attribution ("academics called the chip..." as opposed to "the chip was called ..."). DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Hmmm, I see your point. I'm going to leave this for others better versed in DYK arcania. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • @RoySmith: There's no set guidelines to this, so it's open to interpretation – I think just "writers/academics in <book> say..." is fine, honestly. Some works, particularly journals, have dozens of credited authors. It'd be absurd to list them all in prose. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Symbol confirmed.svg If it's good enough for leeky, then it's good enough for me. Tick restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Access time[edit]

The article states "Access time was rated at 15µs, compared to 60 µs of contemporary chips."

This is the wrong dimension, RAM access times were (and still are) measured in nanoseconds (ns), not microseconds (µs), which are one thousand times longer than nanoseconds.

The article linked with footnote 5 uses the word nanoseconds, so the reason for the article to use "µs" is unclear. 93.209.81.99 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks. DigitalIceAge (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]