Talk:Interrupts in 65xx processors

Notability

Wikipedia is not a compendium of miscellaneous information. How interrupts work on a randomly selected microprocessor chip is minutia for a parts catalog data sheet. We already have an article Interrupt to discuss the use of interrupts in general; if you need parts list specifications, you would consult the manufacturer's data sheet, not an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an opinion to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition, is a compendium of miscellaneous information (check out a print version if you are uncertain of this fact):

Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject (definition at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia with emphasis added)

Incidentally, if you examine the editing history you will see that this article has been around for quite some time and was nominated for deletion in 2008, but obviously was not (please peruse the transcript). Why is it suddenly a problem for you?

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read or looked at all the four million articles, so I tag 'em as I find 'em. In your redacted comment, you are concerned about my credentials. Rest assured that I have the same credentials as any other Wikipedia editor, namely, I have access to the Internet. While we're making insulting suggestions to each other about our lack of knowledge, have you looked at WP:NOT lately, which in the nutshell at the top says "...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet." Of course the nutshell summaries are changed to reflect the current prejudices of the last editor motivated to tinker with them. Given the flawless accuracy and impeccable editorial execution of Wikipedia, just because something passed an AfD discussion once doesn't mean it's not deletion worthy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. The article BRK was deleted. This one is certainly fair game, using the same arguments that got BRK nominated. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool? You think it's cool to delete articles? Why not delete every one of them and then you won't have anything about which to complain. You, sir, are a menace to Wikipedia, which opinion evidently has been formed by many others here. Here's an example:

As noted under 'evidence', Wtshymanski himself posted this response on his own talk page, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it."

My general decorum prevents me from using...er...more descriptive language in this regard. I strongly suggest you back off. With your history of disruptive editing, as well as your holier-than-thou attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if one day you suddenly find yourself frozen out of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, I have been placing watches on articles that you have disruptively edited, including this one. If I see any changes to them by you I will revert your edits and flag them as vandalism. Any questions, mister?

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been contacted about this on my talk page, for some reason, and am reproducing my answer here: I see nothing actionable here. Editors can legitimately disagree about whether an article such as Interrupts in 65xx processors meets the guideline WP:N. It is however unhelpful to repeatedly add or remove notability tags; rather, if doubts persist, somebody should start a merger or deletion discussion to settle the matter. But, Bigdumbdinosaur, your own conduct is out of line. Comments such as "You, sir, are a menace to Wikipedia" or "If I see any changes to them by you I will revert your edits and flag them as vandalism. Any questions, mister?" are by no means compatible with the standards of civility and collegiality editors should hold themselves to. For further dispute resolution advice, please see WP:DR.  Sandstein  09:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist (don't recall why), and Sandstein is of course correct. Further, there is no problem to resolve since no one has attempted to re-tag the article. There are hundreds of computing articles which would have a problem from a bureaucratic application of WP:N since no mainstream media reports on topics like this. I see no reason to get excited over the notability of this topic (it is marginal but satisfactory in my view). Tagging the article would not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, I say this with all due respect for the good you have done here on Wikipedia, but it cannot have escaped your attention that the Wikipedia community has, by overwhelming consensus and on multiple occasions, determined that your views on what is notable, what is trivia, and on what should and should not be deleted are completely out of sync with those of the community. Rather than fighting the same fight and losing over and over, I suggest that you voluntarily refrain from all but the most uncontroversial article-deletion-related activities before someone decides to make an issue of it and requests a topic ban on anything related to article removal, including tagging. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is it written that Wikipedia articles are beyond criticism? Interrupts in 65xx processors is a ...let's say "particularly ill-chosen" ...topic for a general purpose encyclopedia, at least in my opinion. But we have thousands of articles about dots on photographic plates of no conceivable significance to anyone, too. Just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not trivial. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to not have responded to what I wrote above. Yes, we are all aware that (big shock) you think you are right. Heck, it might very well be true; you are smart and you are often right. However, that's not what I wrote about above. The question is whether you realize that, right or wrong, your views on what is notable, what is trivia, and on what should and should not be deleted are completely out of sync with those of the community. That's not up for debate; you would be an idiot to not realize that, and you are not an idiot. Now you can (and have, many times) argue that the community is wrong and you are right, but nonetheless the community disagrees with you on this. Now of course you aren't wrong every time, and it might very well be the case that you are right in the specific case of the Interrupts in 65xx processors article, but that does not change the basic reality that the Wikipedia community has, by overwhelming consensus and on multiple occasions, determined that your views on what is notable, what is trivia, and on what should and should not be deleted are completely out of sync with those of the community. Please tell me that you are aware of this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 3

The community is fortunate it has you as its spokesman. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am merely reporting the results of community decision that you can read here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski. In particular I call to your attention the multiple editors who added their names to the "Users who endorse this summary" sections under Toxicity and View by Guy Macon that told you basically what I told you above, and the the zero editors who added their names to the "Users who endorse this summary" after your response. If you have any serious doubts about the community decision, we can always re-open the RFCU and get another dozen or so editors to tell you the same thing that you have been told repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What an excelent idea. Especially given that an administrator has given Wtshymanski strict instructions not to merge any more articles (which he has naturally totally ignored - no change there). 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The ideal situation would be for for Wtshymanski to accept the community decision and take it to heart. A poorer second choice would be for us to ask some administrators to force him to do so with an escalating series of blocks. What I too often see is someone criticizing Wtshymanski for doing something that they would accept if someone else did it. This is one such situation; it is not clear to me that Interrupts in 65xx processors is notable. My opinion is that it is, but the opposite view isn't obviously wrong. This should be treated as an ordinary content dispute; someone (it doesn't matter who) questioned notability, so if you want the article kept, find citations to reliable sources that establish notability. And if you can't find sources, then Wtshymanski was right and we should all support the merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct: that Wtshymanski accepting the community decision would be the ideal outcome. Let's be honest: that just is not going to happen. It has been made clear through numerous edit wars and hyper-extended discussions, not to mention complete ignoring of other editors' opinions, that Wtshymanski believes that this is his encyclopedia and only his opinions matter.

Now having said that: let's look at the matter in hand. Sometimes Wtshymanski is right (and I have said so on the occasions when it has happened). This is one such occasion. The 65xx series of processors has one of the simpler interupt systems. If this one is so notable then where are all the other 'Interrupts in XXXX processors' articles? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. We don't even have a separate article for the ARM Cortex M4 Nested Vectored Interrupt Controller, and that's a very complex system (see http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2011/09/whats-the-state-of-your-cortex/ for one "gotcha".) Upon reflection, I say merge it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the redirect "BRK"

I believe the three letter acronym "BRK" is too general to redirect to here, even if it's an assembly mnemonic. In the above section on this talk page, this article was considered a candidate for merging, and it would be even more silly to redirect "BRK" to a sub-section of a microprocessor article.

Perhaps "BRK (disambiguation)" should be merged into "BRK". 104.228.101.152 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The pages are BRK (redirect to Interrupts in 65xx processors) and BRK (disambiguation). The current situation is fine until someone comes up with a better redirect for BRK. If that happens, the issue can be discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't BRK→BRK (disambiguation) stand as a better redirect? 104.228.101.152 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no point redirecting to a disambiguation page. The link at the top of the redirect's target shows ""BRK" redirects here. For other uses, see BRK (disambiguation)." which is the standard way of handling this kind of thing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What about merging BRK and BRK (disambiguation), making "BRK" the name for the disambiguation article? I think this would be ideal at least if this article gets deleted/merged. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)