Talk:Disk storage

message: The more I look at this article, the more I conclude we should nuke Sections 2 thru 6 and replace them with a single Section, Types of disk storage.  The section in turn would list the major categories by with disc storage is subdivided, perhaps a short description and then a link to the appropriate article#section.  At this point I can think of the following categories:
::2. Types of disk storage {some generic words about the categorization of disk storage below}
::
Category      	Types
Medium:       	Rigid Magnetic,  Flexible Magnetic or Rigid Magnetic are the primary disk storage media.
Access method:	File system for computer storage, or ??? for audio and video.
Rotation:     	Typically Constant linear velocity for magnetic disk storage and  Constant angular velocity for optical storage.
Size:         	Early disk storage devices, e.g. Early IBM disk storage, were separate cabinets but over time the sizes have evolved into standard Form Factors.
Mechanism:    	Early magnetic disk storage devices used Linear actuators; however, beginning 1975 magnetic storage devices began using rotary actuatorshttp://chmhdd.wetpaint.com/page/IBM+62GV+%2F+STC+8800+Super+Disk such that they are universal today.  In a rotary actuator the heads move across the disk in an arc that approximates a radius.  Optical disk storage devices use both Linear actuators and rotary actuators.
etc.          	TBD
I don't this list has to be exhaustive, just those key categories that significantly segment the market.  For example, I did not include a category for Recording Method which would go into the distinction in disk storage between Analog recording and Digital recording because it seems like TMI.  Note that in most cases I was able to link to an article so I didn't have to say much. In the case of "rotary actuator" where there is no article I put in a brief description.  The idea is to keep this article short since so much of it is elsewhere.  Comments?
Tom94022 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys I have had conjunctivitis for a while - can only just see the computer screen for the first time in 5 days - should be back available in next few daysChaosdruid (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuke Sections 2 thru 6 ?

message: This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out for possible copyright violations in this article 

message: Information about fixed-head disk storage has apparently been removed from this disk storage article.
Is there some other article about fixed-head disks?
Such fixed-head devices are alluded to in many Wikipedia articles --
paging, IBM System/360, 1ESS switch, OS/8, D-37C, Burroughs B2500, Autonetics Recomp II, etc. --
with a variety of names --
"fixed-head disk", "head-per-track disk drive", "head-per-track disk system", and probably other names as well.
In my opinion, it is misleading for "disk storage" in the above articles to link to this article -- which talks only about moving-head disk storage -- when those articles are actually referring to fixed-head disk storage.
Is there even a small section of some other article that discusses fixed-head disk storage,
so I could point those links at something less misleading?
(Fixed-head storage has long been obsolete, but WP:RECENTISM and WP:DEFUNCTS imply that obsolescence alone is no reason not to have an article -- hence our articles on LaserDisc, IBM 305 RAMAC, disk pack, phonograph cylinder, etc.).
--DavidCary (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Fixed-head disk drives are a subset of hard disk drives and IMO should be addressed as a section in the Hard disk drive article or perhaps in a separate article, but are not sufficiently notable to be added to this article.  Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Added a parapraph on head-per-track disk drives to the Hard disk drive article.  That should be sufficient.  I leave it to others to fix the links Tom94022 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed-head disk 

message: Data are or Data is?
* Data is.  As nominator, per sources for this subject and field, per reader expectations and their ease of reading, and per #MOS:STYLERET in Threaded Discussion.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The context here is all under Data storage, so would be "data is" throughout based on this reasoning.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  I think the only 100% agreement we had was to not mix them.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

text: * By !voting for "data is" instead of "choose according to context", you are proposing a rule that would call for changing the sentence "These three specific pieces of data are now stored on the hard disk" to "These three specific pieces of data is now stored on the hard disk". Is that what you intended to do? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. "Pieces of data" is a plural noun phrase, like "slices of apple" or "piles of sand".  "Context" like this would still follow standard English grammar, of course.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis do you make that claim? It certainly isn't in the question asked at the top of this RfC, which makes zero mention of context. If you make a rule, people will enforce the rule as written. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.    I'm sorry if my is/are simplification just for !voting somehow overrides the RfC statement as written.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  23:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's move this to #Clarification on grammar vs. data is/are !votes under Threaded discussion below.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  00:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Per the RfC statement, this RfC asks:
:
The #Survey starts with suggestions for !voting:
:
The suggested shorthand for voting was in no way meant to override the RfC as written.  "Data are" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically the plural of 'datum' in this article" and "Data is" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically a mass noun in this article".  Standard English grammar and WP guidelines would still apply, regardless of the text of the shorthand !voting.  As per the RfC as written, a !vote for either "data is" or "data are" 
 (emphasis added); it will not blindly replace all instances of "data is" or "data are" with the shorthand !vote, overriding correct English grammar, and WP rules for not changing quotes, etc.
Specifically, "pieces of data are" would remain unchanged in this RfC, as "pieces of data" is a plural noun phrase, regardless of whether data is a mass noun or count noun, and plural noun phrases use "are".  --A D Monroe III(talk)  00:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on grammar vs. data is/are !votes

message: Per MOS:RETAIN, 
* Currently, no English variety is established. Although there are a few instances of "data are" (data as count noun) currently in the article, this article also currently has these:
::* (data as mass) instead of  or  (data as count noun)
::*  (mass) instead of  (count)
::* A link to Data transfer rate (mass) instead of Datum transfer rate (count)
::*  (mass); there's no grammatical way to have two plurals in a row here -- it would be like saying , the first noun has to be singular to make a noun phrase. 
::*  (mass) instead of  (count)
:So no variety is established, except for the several times that it's was established completely as data as mass, but changed to be a mix of count and mass (, , ) all by the single editor here still pushing "data are" with no benefit to the article or the reader.
* Since its never been established as data as count in this article, per RETAIN, we .  That would be this version from May 2003, which establishes data as a mass noun for this article.
* Data as mass has been fully established multiple times since then, even including during this RfC.
Following RETAIN requires that we go with "data is".  
Oh, and once again, the whole article is part of Data storage (mass), not Datum storage (count).  So even if the article was ever made consistent with "data are", per RETAIN, the article should be changed to reflect its fundamental ties with data as a mass noun.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:RETAIN