Talk:Ppc64

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article layout[edit]

Hello, Henriok! Reagarding your and my edits, quite frankly I'd say that the article looks much better without bulleted lists. It's much more compact, and the readability doesn't seem to affected significantly simply because it's a very short article so the lists converted into prose aren't "lost" in the remaining content. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't agree :) converting a list of 14 bullets long list to a 28 entries long comma separated string for prose's sake misses the meaning of prose. And, such a string misses one key point of the bulleted list, it's the grouping, where each bullet represent a family of processors: the 620, the 970, PA6T, POWER8 and e6500 are distinctly different.

Your way reduces vertical shortness of the article for subjective "looks" while suppresses legibility and removes key information.

You refer to prose and just exchanging bullets with commas does not constitute "prose", you have to really flesh out the text more than that and then it would hardly be compact an legible. And while we're at prose, one explicit example given in that article where a bulleted list is preferred is pointed out: Long sequences. I's say that a 28 point entry is quite long. And further, an argument given for bulleted lists is that it should be "quicker for the reader to scan" which the bulleted list surely is. -- Henriok (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, yes, you're right that converting everything into "prose" reduces the overall readability, primarily because of the elimination of logical grouping. My bad, sorry, and this layout should present some kind of a compromise; it eliminates separate sections, which in general aren't needed. Hope you agree now. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's cool. There could be some more true prose in this article describing the evolution of ppc64, and difference between the implementations but that'd take too much time and archaeology on my part to be really worth it. I'd rather link to the respective articles and put the efforts there. Thanks for doing the compromising :) -- Henriok (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the downsides of "prose". :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]