Talk:Pixel pipeline

message: Someone needs to explain what a pixel pipeline was and what it is now. I can't tell from this article. 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone needs to explain what a pixel pipeline was

message: Someone needs to clean this up, the grammar is pretty bad and it lacks any section distinction. Ixtli 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone needs to clean this up

message: What is better? More Pipelines and 128mb of Video RAM? or Less Pipelines but 256mb of Video RAM.
-Bandit
:Depends on the game and texture quality setting. Higher textures will run better with more VRAM. But the game still makes a big difference in how much it utilizes the pixel pipelines.. Last Avenue 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is better?

message: Support - Both articles are on the same topic and the name is only slightly different. Bakkster Man 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Pixel Pipelines 

message: This article discusses only DirectX implementations of pixel pipelines, so I have altered the title accordingly.
This has been a terrible idea IMHO. I would have reverted it right away if you wouldn't had occupied the previous name with a new page. While we're at this, please elaborate on your concept of "DirectX pixel pipelines" and "OpenGL pixel pipelines".MaxDZ8 talk 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DirectX 

message: This is meant to be a response to GTBacchus in the "Requested move" thread.
GTBacchus asked: "How does this move request stand with respect to that merge request?".
There's surely some subjectivity to this, but when it comes to me, I have to say that the requested move is not an improvement, in the sense that it doesn't work to the goal of merging.
The requested move merely rolls back part of the wiki regarding shader technology back to previous state, which has been far from optimal for quite a long time. As far as I know, there's no active merging effort around.
I have personally invested quite some effort back in the past but I failed in getting skilled editors to that set of articles. Unfortunately, as more and more editors given up maintaining, more and more users want to have a try at this, resulting in a set of stubs and little more than that.
What recently happened is quite indicative of how "improvements" are carried over this set of articles.MaxDZ8 talk 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what kind of work would you say most needs to be done, regarding these articles? Are there many pages that need to be merged, or just the two I initially asked about? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the thorough answer. A pool of editors with knowledge and time is obviously a resource we can't do without, and when they're in short supply, it's hard to build the encyclopedia. There are things we could do, though, to make these articles more visible to the right editors.  I've just added a banner to the talk pages of all the articles you linked in your reply. They'll all now appear on lists as part of WikiProject Computing, and that's where you'll find more experts hanging out and working on computer science articles. From skimming their page, it looks like they might be open to highlighting these articles for special collaborative attention. That could perhaps overcome the effects of inertia and erosion that you describe. You might just post a note at the project talk page, and see if there's any interest.  If I can be of any assistance, just let me know. Take care. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Req move VS mergeTo