Talk:LIO (SCSI target)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LIO (SCSI target) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Networking / Software 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 Networking task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Conflict of interest

This article about a product from RisingTide Systems appears to be soaking in WP:COI. It was created by Thomas.uhl (talk · contribs) who appears to be RisingTide's VP of Business Development; and its most prolific editor is Marcfl (talk · contribs), who appears to be its CEO. The latter in particular has a history of using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting both himself (see WP:Articles for deletion/Marc Fleischmann) and his company (see WP:Articles for deletion/RisingTide). TJRC (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. This might be notable enough to keep, but the peacock language needs to come down a bit to be more neutral, as per independent sources W Nowicki (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to LIO (SCSI target). The consensus is that this isn't the primary topic of LIO and no one has opposed to Dsimic's proposal of "LIO (SCSI target)". I would say there's consensus to move Lio to Lio (singer) except that no notice has been left at that article and it's unreasonable to move an article when anyone watching that page would have had no idea it was even under discussion. If anyone feels strongly about it (pinging In ictu oculi), I'd suggest starting a new RM at Talk:Lio. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LIO Target → LIO – In Linux commonly just referred to as "LIO". – Marcfl (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or move Lio ((born 17 June 1962) is a Belgian singer and actress who was a pop icon in France and Belgium during the 1980s.) to Lio (singer), and then move Lio (disambiguation) to Lio, and redirect LIO to Lio? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Anthony Appleyard's list of solutions are more in line with normal titling practice. Liō can probably stay where it is, but the Belgian singer isn't primary for Lio in Google Books, there is no primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Instead, disambiguate per Anthony. L.I.O. should also point to the disambiguation page -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support: Anthony Appleyard's proposal is reasonable, but there are opposing examples like Berkeley Software Distribution vs. BSD vs. BSD (disambiguation). It's just that some acronyms become quite recognizable terms on their own, though it's questionable how much of that applies to "LIO". If we end up following Anthony Appleyard's proposal, then LIO Target should be also renamed to LIO (SCSI target) as "LIO Target" isn't that great as a title. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LIO (SCSI target). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the architecture section

This whole article is a bit of a dumpster fire that's the architecture section blatantly violates WP:NPOV. I propose that we clean it up or if it's too far gone we just remove it until we can get it better 22FatCats (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review new changes

I have made some changes to the summary of the article (see my edit on 21 oct 2024). Since these are some of my first edits to Wikipedia, it would be helpful if my changes could be reviewed, and ideally, some feedback provided. MrCiteYourSources (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]