Template talk:N-bit

message: When browsing through the N-bit articles, it became apparent that all of them essentially used the same intro-text. However it also became apparent that the quality and completeness of these intro-texts where not consitstent.
So there were two options open:
#Create an article for "bittage" or something.
#:This was not really an option because I don't agree with thinking up new words for article names.
#:Also I think that an article is much easier to read if you don't have to follow every sublink to understand what an article is about.
#Create a parameterized template with the intro-text.
#:Generally speaking this kind of text-duplication is not really recommended.
#:However, in this case, I think it is the best way.
Even if you agree with me adjusting this template to contain intro-text, you might still not agree with the actual intro-text. Therefore I'll provide some ideas on how I could have done things differently. Maybe you think that something can be done better or neater!
#"0.5 bits" and "1 bits" looks ugly.
#"There are 28 (256) possible permutations for 8 bits." and "A 16-bit integer can store (...etc...)" could be on this page?
#See also
#*8-bit
#*16-bit application
#*16-bit era
#*32-bit
#*32-bit application
#*64-bit
#: might be redundant or should be on this page?
#Add some heading structure?
Please let me hear your ideas on this! (I'll keep this page on my watchlist.) Shinobu 09:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005

message: Why are 12-, 18-, 24-, 36-, 48-, and 60-bit architectures not mentioned in this template?  There are many important historical computers with those word sizes: PDP-8 (12), PDP-1 (18), SDS 940 (24), PDP-10 (36-bit word length), CDC 6600 (60), etc.  Is it supposed to be only for modern 8-bit-byte-oriented architectures?  If so, it should say so somewhere.  --Macrakis 12:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course correct. Maybe we do need to include them in the infobox. If so, I suggest having these 6-bit-byte systems on a seperate line. Shinobu 13:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why limited to these sizes?

message: I'm in the process of looking through all of the articles in the :Category:Computer architecture category and trying to sort them into sub-categories because the cat has become so large. I would like to group all of the N-bit articles plus others related to bit widths such as Word (computer science), Dword, Qword, maybe Endianness, etc. into a new category that is broad enough encompass such concepts.
I need help finding a proper name for the category and am asking for suggestions. Some names I have thought of (I like some better than others!) are:
*Category:Data unit
*Category:Word size
*Category:Bit width
*Category:Data bits
This new category would be placed in these categories:
*:Category:Units of information
*:Category:Computer memory
*:Category:Digital registers
*:Category:Computer architecture (? – perhaps not; the above two are already subs of architecture)
Suggestions would be helpful! JonHarder 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, lacking any discussion, I have created :Category:Data unit. JonHarder 14:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category for bit-size related articles 

message: Shouldn't the term "processor" used in this template be changed to the less ambiguous "microprocessor" or even "CPU"?  All the articles that include this template refer to computer architecture, not DSPs or SoCs. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-14 00:52Z
:I agree.  Go for it.  --Doradus 12:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Processor" 

message: The following comment was moved from Talk:Word (computing):
: I noticed that the 64-bit architecture page has a side panel which allows you to click on 16-bit data size link, which links directly to this page.  I think that's anathema to the idea that a word-size is defined by the architecture.  There should be a page that redirects from 16-bit data size to Word (computer science).  This way, the link from 64-bit architecture does not lend the web surfer the wrong impression that 16-bit data size is always equal to word-size -- anonymous jan 18 2007 2:58 pm est —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.76.45 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Word' is not same as '16-bit' 

message: Just because a CPU happens to have an N-bit address bus or an N-bit data bus, that doesn't mean it's an "N-bit CPU" in as meaningful a sense as the sense in which a CPU with N-bit virtual addresses and N-bit registers is an "N-bit CPU".  See, for example, Talk:64-bit#Regarding the Atari Jaguar.  Guy Harris (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address and data buses? 

message: I've reverted two recent edits which have deleted the "boilerplate" intro text and various parts of the table as I can't see a good reason for doing this - if there is one, please discuss it here first. Letdorf (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletions