Talk:Data storage

message: Latest way to store digital information, in the DNA of bateria.  -- Kendrick7talk 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digitally encoded DNA. Fascinating! I'm wondering if we should mention it in the caption for the DNA photo. Oicumayberight 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pointing it out. I have added "DNA" into the caption. Somerandomuser (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA 

message: There was a statement about trends added to the article. "International Data Corporation estimated that the total amount of digital data was 281 billion gigabytes in 2007, and had for the first time exceeded the amount of storage." I moved it to it's own section because it didn't belong in the terminology section. I'm not sure it even belongs in the article because it appears to be talking more about computer data storage when referring to the "amount of storage" than the broader category of storage devices covered in the article. It should be made clear if it's talking about computer data storage, moved to the computer data storage article, or both. Also the section should be removed if it isn't expanded within the year. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement about trends

message: The phrase "physical and logical storage" currently redirects here to data storage device.
Which I find odd, because currently the "data storage device" article says nothing about logical storage.
So is there supposed to be something about "logical storage" in this "data storage device" article (perhaps it was accidentally erased)?
Or should the redirect be pointed at some article that does mention "logical storage" -- perhaps logical block addressing?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term was only used in one article, File systems#See also section. From the history of the term on wikipedia, it appears that it pertains more to computer data storage. I redirected the term to that article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  physical and logical storage 

message: "In a less comprehensive study, the International Data Corporation estimated that the total amount of digital data was 281 exabytes in 2007, and had for the first time exceeded the amount of storage.[4]"
: - the second part of the sentence does not parse; text appears to be omitted
: - I actually went to the footnote looking for it and it's a dead link (and pretty ancient anyway).
Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed a sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Data storage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118072720/http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0 to http://ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Storage medium redirects here and there are about 50 incoming links through this redirect and similar Storage media. I added boldface to the first occurance of this term in the lead and  reverted claiming it was not appropriate because storage medium is not a synonym for data storage. The purpose of the boldface is to orient readers when they land in a new article and, with the potential for so many readers to come in through these paths, I believe the boldface is warranted. I also believe it is supported by the manual of style. But, if I'm doing this wrong, I need to know because I do a lot of lead improvement work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You rightly mention the MoS clause about orienting readers who follow redirects. We, as editors, try to use good judgement about when and where to apply it. We may ask: Is the reader "disoriented" after following one of these redirects? The lead sentence uses the term storage medium, and establishes its relationship to the headword data storage. Boldface is an anchor for the eye, and therefore a potential starting point. Is it useful to attract the reader's attention to the end of the (short) lead sentence, when their most likely inclination would otherwise be to read that sentence? —Ringbang (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it is useful. I was personally mildly WP:ASTONISHED when I landed here and that's why I added the boldface. It looks like you've abandoned your synonym argument. That's reassuring because I hadn't heard that one before. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Kvng,Per the first paragraph of MOS:BOLD, boldface in the lede is principally for the headword and its synonyms. I mentioned this is in my edit summary since your reasons for adding the boldface were unclear. In my previous comment I shared my perspective on the points you raised. Redirects from subtopic and related words abound, but rarely necessitate boldface for the redirect name. —Ringbang (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I completely agree that we want to go beyond computer data storage. In fact, that's a key reason for this article's existence.  To understand why it does not yet have more material about non-electric data storage, have a look at the section "Requested move 6 June 2017". This article is relatively new. It is still missing a huge amount of material and may even need a rewrite; but it is a broad-concept article, and its scope encompasses all forms of data storage, from rock art to DNA. There is a salient difference between data and information, however, and such a change in scope should be supported by rigorous sources. One of the functions of this article should be to distinguish between information and data as best we can. —Ringbang (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I mispoke, we should rename this article "Information storage" based in part on James Gleick book, The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood.  I don't see enough of a distinction between "data storage" and "computer data storage" to justify two articles and I don't think most people refer to the information in DNA, a book. a record, a microfiche or even an audio CD as data.  Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text:  You said that the boldface is not the solution. I assume you prefer we reorganize and expand and have a separate article on Storage medium. That's all well and good but it will take some time to get there. What do you think is a good solution in the interim? Do you want to change where Storage medium redirects? Do you want readers to continue to be WP:ASTONISHED when they land here? Do you read MOS:BOLD the same way    does? ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To be precise I agreed with  "that boldface in the lede is not an appropriate solution to the problem".  I have no interim solution but I would like to hear from others as to splitting the article.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

text: A good place to start a separate article on Storage medium could be to use translations of the German pages https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datentr%C3%A4ger and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datenspeicher PRullmann (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be stuck on this but I do a lot of work on leads in a lot of articles and want to make sure I'm not making a widespread mess of things. The second sentence of WP:BOLD has not been discussed,  , are you resting on the ...are not a requirement piece here in your revert or is there something else I'm still missing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage medium redirect