Template talk:POWER, PowerPC, and Power ISA

message: There's a ton of stuff that's related to Power Architecture, and most of them is gathered on the :Category:Power Architecture page. Wouldn't it be better to just link to that page rather than to crowd the template with links every related article? The category is listing over 90 entries so far. However, there are related links that's not covered by the Category, like RISC. -- Henriok 09:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of the related links, and added a link called more... to :Category:Power Architecture  :-) --Unixguy 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related links 

message: Has anyone noticed that the background color for the "Related Links" heading makes the text difficult to read? It should be changed. Rilak (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the color of the text instead. -- Henriok (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: This navbox in POWER3 makes the article look awful. The text is squeezed between the photograph and the navbox extends down into the section below. Is there are reason why the navbox bust be vertical and placed at the top of the article instead of horizontal at the end of an article? Rilak (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance 

message: I'm inclined to move POWER5 to the historical section. It's probably still used by IBM in some storage systems but hey.. There are probably some PowerPC 603 still being made. The technology and instruction set is historical by now. There is no new implementations not any new development using POWER5. -- Henriok (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we define "historical"? The 603 is still in production, but it is not recommended for new designs. Essentially, it is no longer actively marketed, it is only available for existing customers, and only so they have time to find alternatives. Does the POWER5 fit? It is not a chip that is available on the merchant market. If I am not mistaken, Bull and Hitachi use the POWER5 in their current products. I think it is more appropriate to say the POWER5 is historical when all products using it are discontinued. Rilak (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I wasn't aware that Bull and Hitachi still used POWER5. -- Henriok (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWER5 historical? 

message: User CloudComputation suggested a significant redesign of the infobox, but I also like changes motivated. If one were to provide a compelling argument for changing the layout I'd like to hear and see them beforehand, so we don't end up in an edit war. I'm certainly not against changing it, I'm just against changing the design to something worse and if I'm not immediately convinced that a change is for the better, an argument might persuade me, so let's discuss it. Previously we've gone from a colourful layout, in landscape orientation with the Power Arch logo, to what we have today, and that wen't smoothly with well grounded arguments.
These are my reasons for providing a very clear segmentation in a historical/current/future fashion:
# There's been a complicated shift in marketing and instruction set terminologies (Is POWER POWER? When is POWER PowerPC? What is Power Arch?) that makes sense if you look at it from a historical point of view.
# Many products are named according to a convention regarding generations (POWER1-8, 601/603/604, RS64-I/I/III/IV, 440/50/60/70, G1/2/3/4/5, etc). Generations are grounded in time, so a segmentation from a historical point of view makes sense.
# As an encyclopaedia covering a living and evolving topic providing historical context is very useful. What is current knowledge, what happened in the past, how did things evolve, what can we expect of the future?
# If one thinks a time based structure is nice, one should segment it in a order dictated by time, not just label things based on time and then order them randomly.
# It's easy to get an time based overview of the state of Power Architecture by just glancing at the table.
I don't have an opinion of how the links inside the four topics (historical/current/future/related) should be ordered. As it stands now, there's really not a very obvious and consistent ordering so I'm very open for suggestions here. CloudComputation's proposition removed the segmentation and essentially eradicated the usefulness of looking and the topic from a historical point of view. He added a footnote explaining the italics, but that didn't provide for any clarity looking at the table at a glance, and a historical view is best served. If one needs a standing explanation of a design ornament then that design choice might not be the best. 
My suggestion to CloudComputation's is to provide reasons why a change is necessary. And why not fork the template to a sandbox so we can take a look at his suggestion before implementing it?-- Henriok (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Henriok's suggestion to fork the template into a sandbox. This way the change(s) could be agreed on by all the major contributors before updating the template itself. I also think the Power Systems listed in the template might be appropriate for a timeline type chart.  I'm not an expert in doing something like this, but it might look something like on chart on the Power Macintosh page. Unixguy (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello and this is CloudComputation. Henriok said, my redisigned version of Template order things ramdomly. Now I show you a new template. Henriok listed the Pros of Sorting by Time, and it's now my time to list the Pros of Sorting by Series.
# People can see who made it, e.g. Freescale made QorIQ and Qorivva.
# It can distinguish RAD6000 from Xenon.
And for Henriok's recommendation I will:
# Arranged the series by time, i.e. POWER(1990), PowerPC(1992), RS64, RAD(1997), Nintendo(2000), PowerPC e(2006), Qor(2008), Other
# In a series every products are arranged by time, e.g. PowerPC 600(1992), PowerPC 400(1994), PowerPC 750(1997), PowerPC G4(1999), PowerPC 970(2002).
Thank you! CloudComputation, sent at 2014/04/26 04:52 UTC, Unix time 1,398,156,720.   — Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested redesign as of April 2014 

message: Since there are no more discussion after 3 months I think it's time to put it up. CloudComputation  04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redesignation is adapted 

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia about this template. 99Electrons (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Architecture on Wikipedia