Talk:Commit charge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Tidy it up first

This article first needs to be tidied up. It's pretty messy, and it has information in one paragraph when it should be in another. --Gary King 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I just did a "brain dump" to get the facts down quickly (and correct errors in the previous version) but haven't had time to get back to it. It's tough to provide a useful explanation of what "commit charge" really is without explaining most of the Windows memory management subsystem... Jeh 11:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I found this page useful. Yet it does not appear to qualify as notable under WP:N. But, as a good-faith contributor to Wikipedia, respecting the consensus, I have flagged it as potentially non-notable.

Specifically, I believe it does have significant coverage, from reliable sources, but in this case that coverage is not from sources that are independent of the topic (they're from Microsoft Press). I also believe that significant coverage that is independent from Microsoft is unlikely, due to the specific nature of the topic.

But I found the page useful. I wanted to know what commit charge meant, and this page did a damn fine job of explaining it. And it is encyclopaedic content, reliably sourced. This is a good example of why I support the reconsideration of the notability guideline.

Seems a bit hasty to flag this for deletion. It is an article I refer to regularly. So I'd consider it noteworthy. I certainly be very disappointed to see it deleted... Felixcatuk 09:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks! :) Jeh 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Unfortunately, being useful, reliable and encyclopaedic doesn't seem to be enough on Wikipedia. It also appears that topics need to be notable. See the content guideline on notability: Wikipedia:Notability. I don't agree with it, but refusing to act on it, or acting on it only selectively, seems to me to offer two problems: One, people will use the policy to selectively achieve ends that have little or nothing to do with the intent or intended outcome of the policy; and, two, the policy is less likely to be improved because everybody is happy enough "just living with it". -- BenBildstein 04:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Specifically, I believe it does have significant coverage, from reliable sources, but in this case that coverage is not from sources that are independent of the topic (they're from Microsoft Press)." Hm, there should be some reliable third party sources in the form of Mark Russinovich's articles for whatever magazine he was writing for, before he was hired by MS. Also, possibly, some items from his blog, again before he was hired from MS. Can anyone dig those up?
Jeh 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The subject's inherent notability comes from the fact that this article describes something that is currently in use on several hundred million computers. As to the references we're using, User:Jeh is a bit confused. Both books were written by David A. Solomon and Mark Russinovich, and the fact that the books were published by Microsoft Press doesn't mean that they're authoritative Microsoft publications -- see Code Complete for an example. Considering that Solomon & Russinovich have been highly regarded experts in the field of Windows NT internals for many years, these books pass Wikipedia's WP:N requirements. I own the latter book, so I can confirm that the information is accurate.
Consequently, I've removed the {{notability}} tag. It really isn't appropriate here.
-/- Warren 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Being in use on several hundred million computers isn't enough. Being part of every human being isn't even enough. Yes, it is notable in the sense you describe, but that is a different sense of notability than the one described by WP:N. As an example, it has previously been discussed that places are not automatically notable. This came up when someone wrote a bot that started making pages based on census data or such. The verifiability wasn't enough, the accuracy wasn't enough. It didn't comply with the policy. See User:Uncle_G/On_notability#Notability_is_not_a_blanket for a better explanation.
Nor is being authoritative enough. Being reliable is one aspect of being notable, and being independent is another entirely.
Like I said, I think this is good content. I've suggested a change to the deletion policy that would stop deletion being a solution to non-notability. We mustn't just ignore the policy - we must change it.
-- BenBildstein 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like you to note that the Middle finger of the human hand has its own article. It's only notability is that it's a feature of the body. If you're going to start being a policy lawyer about all this stuff, then I'll direct you to the official policy WP:IAR which is "Ignore All Rules". If WP is better because of something, even if it breaks the rules, then it stays. As you stated yourself, this article should be here, it just doesn't meet the Notability requirements. If you believe that, then ignore the notability policy! I think a little bit of this may be a little bit of BenBildstein climbing a particular monument. --Puellanivis (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the page to be extremely informative. I think "common sense" should prevail here, rather than the "letter of the law" regarding notability.CurtChristnsn 13:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This information on this page is really useful! -- Jan Niggemann 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.80.62 (talk)

[edit] Units

Moved here from comments placed in the article by an anonymous contributor, 64.203.165.227:

It'd be nice if the author of this page would add what units these values are in. Is it megabytes, kilobytes, etc...

My response: The display itself shows that the units are K (kilobytes). Is something more needed? Jeh (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Task Manager Performance.png

Image:Windows Task Manager Performance.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)