User talk:Sbmeirow/Archive/2011

Menu

1. User Home
2. User Talk Home
3. User Talk Archive Home

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Sbmeirow/Archive/2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas City, Kansas census estimates

I disagree with your revision on Kansas City, Kansas. It is proper to use census estimates in addition to original census figures. I have done this on hundreds of city articles and generally try to follow the guidelines of WikiProject Cities (U.S. Cities). The 2010 census will be released very soon, in the mean time it adds value to the article to include this information; there is no reason to wait for the census to release it's new figures. I have included 2000 and 2009 figures with sources in the lead. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to avoid editing demographics for cities in my area until other people decide whether or not someone is going to update a bot to do an automated change. If I made radical changes to the demographics section, then more likely a bot would pass over those articles. The more a bot can do means that less I have to edit by hand. See Wikipedia:2010 US Census. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics section of all city articles

They were created by Ram-Man, who operated a bot on his account. Please don't think of asking him, since he's not edited in ages. Instead, you should discuss the question at Wikipedia:2010 US Census and its talk page. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Talk:MicroSDHC card

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Talk:MicroSDHC card, for the following reasons:

• Proposed deletion tags belong on the article, not the talk page.
• It is perfectly acceptable to have a redirect from a plausible misnomer to the article at the correct title.

If you still believe this redirect should be deleted, feel free to list it at Redirects for discussion, but please read WP:RFD#DELETE before doing so. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MicroSD merge

I've added a {{underconstruction}} to the page, since you're underway. This will indicate that you're working on it. Otherwise, people will not know unless they look through the edit history. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook Reader

Please join discussion on WP:ELN (PocketBook) if you wish, I also will be reducing models to a single paragraph to meet complaints and waiting for your reaction. Regards, --Brainsteinko (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for inviting me over to discuss PocketBook Reader article. Though I have made almost 10K edits since I started Wikipedia 8 months ago, by no means does it mean that I'm an expert. The biggest problem with editing articles to trying to remember rules and trying to find edit guidelines for specific types of articles. One problem is the interpretation of rules and guidelines, some seem to be hard facts yet others seem to be suggestions. As a person edits more, they learn more, and what I thought was correct a few months ago is not what I know today.

The state of this article didn't have a perfect layout before I started editing it, and the technical aspects close to 100% accurate. This is what it looked like before I first touched it.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=398108069&oldid=397817252

The reason I started editing this article was that I was shopping for an eBook Reader, came across PocketBook products, and went to the article to learn more. As I started reading the corporate web site and looking back at the Wiki article, I noticed a lot of mistakes, thus I started correcting them. I did get out of hand adding all their models to the article, but it nothing more than expanding the format that existed prior to my edits. Is it the right way or wrong way, I have no idea, because I don't have a guideline for these types of articles, but for USA CITY articles I read this WP:USCITY.

My view is that what is useful for visitors is far more important than wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules can and do change, but MOST visitors come here to find accurate and useful information and links, and likely don't give a crap about editing rules.

Concerning the link to www.bookland.net, since it is "promoted" by the PocketBook company, then it is a related link, see lower-right side of http://www.pocketbook-usa.com/products/pocketbook-902/

Is this link 100% required for this article, likely no, but it does has more right to be in this article than all other 3rd-party book sellers. Whether or not you decide to leave the link doesn't matter to me.

Concerning links to the product manuals are another issue. I think links to online user manuals are extremely important for wikipedia articles, because they provide users an easy way to learn far more accurate information than can be added to the article. I would argue that all product-based articles on Wikipedia MUST provide links to online user manuals (if they exist).

Concerning all the product information, yes I did get out of control adding information, but it is nothing more than an expansion of the same format that existed prior to my 1st edit. If you look at the hundreds of cell phone articles on wikipedia, most of this information is refined down to INFOBOXES, the problem with this article that there are a bunch of products, and the one infobox per product wouldn't work. Maybe we should add a high-level non-product-specific infobox on this article and then summarize the products in a table? (discuss it) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Talk:Thunderbolt (Interface)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. See Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM. TimL (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Thunderbolt (interface) article and discusion, other statements that apply are Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because everything surrounding Apple, Inc. should be scrutinized, because the Apple marketing machine / PRO Apple blogs / PRO Apple magazines are all extremely biased and notoriously one-sided. If this article compares other standards such as USB and Firewire, then it should discuss both PRO's and CON's of such standards, not just the CON's. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"If this article compares other standards such as USB and Firewire, then it should discuss both PRO's and CON's of such standards, not just the CON's." That is true, if you have a problem with the article's neutrality you can discuss your problems and tag it NPOV. Your other statements statements are kind of silly, if a Magazine is PRO-anything, isn't going to be pretty one-sided? Regardless Thunderbolt is not an Apple product, it is an Intel product implemented by Apple (currently) and anyone else who wishes to license it from Intel. Right now, because there is so little publicly available information on thunderbolt I think it's best to just stick to the facts until more details become available. Many sections have been removed that were purely speculative or non-encyclopedic. TimL (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Beauty queens

Sorry for confusing you — that's not what I meant. Beauty queens aren't generally notable, so without articles they shouldn't be listed. The only people that should be included without articles are people that are obviously notable, such as professional athletes or state-or-higher-level politicians. Anyone who has an article that demonstrates notability should be included on a list as long as their article says that they're from that place. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend (talk) 6:37 am, 1 March 2011, Tuesday (8 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−6)

Thanks • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

10,000 Total Edits

I finally crossed over the 10,000 edit mark in 8.5 months since I first started editing Wikipedia. Free Beer for everyone, oh maybe not, but its the thought that counts right. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census Changes For Cities

I noticed you updated the population total for Peabody, Kansas with the total from the 2010 Census. Where did you find that? I haven't seen any city-level data from the 2010 census yet and my searches on the various census websites haven't found anything. I'm very interested in where you were able to find the data. The very general link inserted in the bottom of the population chart doesn't actually lead to anything besides the general census site. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The FactFinder 2 is a monumental piece of cr*p. Numerous people from Wikipedia feel the same way. As I understand it, they have been releasing data in stages. I know that Iowa has been online for a while, and I heard yesterday on the news that Kansas was online.

I took me a large number of tries to get this Census counts for the counties. Originally I thought it was only for Kansas, but later after pasting it in another browser, I noticed that it is for all counties in USA, then you have to click on a pull-down to choose the state. I've already been updating some of the counties in Kansas using this link as a reference.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST05&prodType=table

For Peabody, Kansas, I finally found a census list for all cities in Kansas, but the web page was very slow. Unfortunately I didn't save the URL, thus is why I didn't put it on the Peabody article. Tonight I need to see if I can recreate the search for it again. The census number for Peabody is correct and did come from Fact Finder 2. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:FUBAR007#2010_Census_Changes_For_Cities

Harper, Kansas

Hello, I noticed you added back in things I edited on the Harper,KS wiki, then subsequently removed them again. Why?

Thanks! Michaeldpotter (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not taking it personal. :-)

Here is the paragraph that I was referring to:

The median income for a household in the city was $3,272, and the median income for a family was $4,761. Males had a median income of $2,583 versus $1,779 for females. The per capita income for the city was $1,543. About 6.9% of families and 9.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 11.0% of those under age 18 and 6.4% of those age 65 or over. The city of Harper is one of the poorest cities in all of Kansas.

Someone had changed the dollar amounts for income and added the "The city of Harper is one of the poorest cities in all of Kansas." to be a jerk I guess. I corrected the amounts, then removed the last sentence.

Forgive me if I'm not doing it correctly; I'm new to editing. :-)

Thanks! Michaeldpotter (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Independence, Kansas

I see how I goofed up on my recent edit of Independence, Kansas by making the links go through a redirect, however, in your haste to correct my "bad edits" you have reverted the part about Derek Schmidt. Schmidt is no longer the Majority Leader of the Kansas Senate. He is, however, the current Attorney General of Kansas. However you want the entry to read is up to you, I only was trying to be helpful and wanting the Independence article, as bad as it is, to at least be accurate. Your choice of words in your edit description "remove bad edits" cuts. Very seldom have I had other editors revert my edits as I try to edit in a responsible manner. I may not always know all the technical script to get things to link right but I don't change the facts of an article unless I have references to add to the subject matter. In short, I am a responsible editor not a vandal. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I only backed out your edit because the "right side of the older wiki link" and its square-brackets were left showing up as real text to the reader, thus it looked like a "bad edit" to me. My comment was meant to mean that it was an editing mistake. I didn't know what you were trying to do with your edit, so I just backed it out so that readers wouldn't see the right side of the older wiki link. My backing out your last edit had nothing to do with the content, but instead only because of the broken "wiki links". Please add content back to the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I screwed up by not checking my edit appearance after attempting to correct my link edits. My fault, but I will leave it to you to edit the Derek Schmidt entry in the Independence, Kansas page. Let's move on and try something constructive, my fellow Kansan. Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peabody, Kansas

Uhh...oops. I'm sorry: I don't know why, but I thought that it was 1,210 in 2000. Perhaps I just misread something? I misunderstood your edit summary as a statement that the 2000 census and the 2010 census were not the same event, rather than that they had different totals. Thanks for resolving the problem. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Torrent

Hey Sbmeirow, I read your post asking why there are no Wikipedia torrents. Well I've started publishing my own (unofficial) torrent and I was hoping you could tell me what you think about it. Specifically about how for my next torrent: I plan on cutting out all of the Wikipedia: File: MediaWiki: and Help: Namespaces leaving just the articles. More here: Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#Wikipedia_Namespace--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook Reader

Hello,

I'm planning to delete the Overview section of PocketBook eReader for a number of reasons. If you want to keep it please say so and why. I see no chances of somebody expanding it good and as for me, I am not prone to either.

On the other hand, I will be adding adding "Future Plans" (working title) title in less than few hours and hope for your critical revision.

Cheers--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

I see now that there are more forms of wikilove like smiles and cookies that are more appropriate to give randomly. Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Coffeyville Community College

OK, now what is the problem? CCC is one of the pages that I patrol for vandalism. I removed it. You put it back. You yourself had removed the same vandalism earlier. I'm just trying to contribute here; if I'm getting in your road or doing something that is not to your satisfaction, how about letting me know on my talk page and we will work something out. I don't like my edits reverted needlessly. If you have a complaint, take it up with me. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I must have accidentally undid the wrong article or clicked the wrong thing(s), because I didn't mean for the vandalism to stay. I noticed more tonight, so deleted it. I watch all Kansas articles, so I try to revert vandalism ASAP. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's that time of the year. I did some checking (I am local to the Coffeyville-Independence area) and the vandalism is CCC students showing their collective asses. Too close to time to graduate or be off for the summer. Graduation at CCC was this weekend and I imagine everyone will move on to other mischief now. I patrol many of the pages in the SE Kansas area; I'll keep an eye peeled for more vandalism. Ad Astra per Aspera. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

10,000 Article Edits

I rolled past 10,000 article edits and 13,100 total edits on May 31, 2011, which is 11.5 months after I started editing Wikipedia. Free beer for everyone, lol. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing Redundant Geographical Coordinates

I have been removing redundant geographical coordinates because their use does not conform to recommended WikiPedia practice, as discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#multiple copies of coordinates on a page.3F.

I have no plans to change all 19,000 entries. I am changing the entries I encounter during my genealogy research. MrBill47 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are nothing more than guidelines, and guidelines can be changed if they don't make sense! Whats the point of changing just a few, if you don't change all of them, or all of the ones in Kansas? It is kind of a half-ass approach. It is better just to leave it the same OR put in a request to get someone to make a BOT make the changes to a large number of articles OR change the guidelines if someone isn't going to clean all of them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dodge City, Kansas

I find this edit perplexing, in that the changes I made caused the first sentence to read more smoothly, yet you reverted them with a snarky edit summary asking if I intended to rewrite all of the county seat articles. Why do you take issue with the edit, other than it (apparently) isn't like the other county seat articles? I ask, because what the other county seat articles read like isn't of any relevance to my attempts to improve the DCK article. LHM 18:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Threshing stone

Before I do anything else, I'd like to confirm that you can't move it. Does the "move" button not appear at the top of the page as it does on most pages? Or is it there, and you can click it, but it won't let you move the page? There's no move protection on the original page or on Threshing stone, and that page has no history that would prevent you from moving it. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I may not be online much more tonight; I'm having power supply problems for my laptop. If you find that you're entirely unable to move the page, and if I don't reply for several hours, a simple post at WP:AN will work. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved it. Thanks for the help! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wichita Southeast High School

You can move a page over a redirect in this case: if the only edit in the redirect's history is its creation as a redirect to the present target, anyone can always move it. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wichita West High School

Hiya! Just dropping in to say that you've done a great job on expanding the infobox, (and the page in general), on the Wichita West High School page. Thanks a million!

L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kavya Shivashankar

Hello Sbmeirow. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kavya Shivashankar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: page was created as a redirect per outcome of AfD. Take to RfD if you think it needs to be deleted. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 09:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Luray, Kansas

FUBAR007

Wichita South High School

No. Its the class of 2001. Im a South alum and I also played football there. My sister, was a member of the senior class of 2001 and the football team didnt win a single game in her time there. Under 2 usernames and a few different IP addresses , I've written about 90% of the article. Everything I have written is the truth, just a lot of it I have had trouble being able to find references for it. I've done what I could.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You've done a great job, but the problem with the article, and most high school articles, is Verifiability because there is a lack of References.

Search the Wichita-Eagle newspaper website and other sources to backup your claims with references.

You should look at WikiProject Schools guideline, and some other great high scool articles:

Garden City High School (KS), Plano Senior High School (TX), Johnson Senior High School (MN), Stuyvesant High School (NY).

Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

These maps that you insistent on putting in the article DO NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE SCHOOL. Do not put them back in. That school district map would be relevant to the article, if it actually directly and clearly stated which area of the city is South High district.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I added sources, some of which of been copied from within the page. Also, one problem I have with what you did in your last edits is added citation needed to places that 1, didnt need one because the same information is within the article with a source, 2, in the city and state championships table you put citation needed when both tables already have a citation. Look in the table titles, next the title there is a citation. I understand you are trying to make all information is sourced and truthful, but some of the stuff you are doing makes no sense whatsoever.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wichita High Schools

I undid my revisions I made removing the maps. Did not realize the maps you put on were identified which sections of the city were each high school. However, the Northeast page should not have the map on there because at says in the article, Northeast is a magnet school and does not have a district. Any student in the city can attend Northeast, but if they decide to play sports they must do it at the school they are in the disctrict for. So leave the map off of the Northeast page.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved discussion over to Talk:Wichita Northeast Magnet High School.

Wichita High Schools

Don't want any animosity after the map incident. While I did finally see your point for the maps, the maps you orginally (like a month ago maybe longer) were trying to use were actually irrelevant to the schools such as City of Wichita Map and I think you even put one identifying each school district in the state. I feel we both can improve the articles for Wichita High schools by collaborating because you and I seem be to the only ones committed to ensuring accuracy and that articles are full of useful information. The South article I tend to lean a little more too, being an alumni, but I still track the schools pages.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to chill out a little bit. I'll try to help out. I'm currently going through all city articles of Kansas by adding 2010 census / maps / official links, fix major mistakes, remove vandalism, fix problems in infoboxes, and so on. I started at the Colorado border and working eastward and about half done. I'm also watching all edits for ALL Kansas related articles and a bunch of technical articles too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll help were I can. My areas expertise are mainly sports, but I do think there is some work to be done on the Kansas articles. I work 2 jobs and I've got a baby on the way so I gotta keep priorities right but I'll do what I can.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the doing the 2010 updates properly. It's annoying dealing with the editors who introduce 2010 information without sources, and factfinder2 is confusing enough to me that I can't use it to update information by myself. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi. Thank you for your work on school articles. Please bear in mind that most school articles are created by WP:SPA. If school articles are lacking in some relatively interesting elements, (such as for example history), it's often a good idea to place a friendly message on the creator's talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Andover, Kansas

Sorry for the delay; I'm in the busiest part of the busiest semester so far in grad school, so I'm just editing while taking quick breaks from schoolwork or going to church. See the Census Bureau's Geographic Boundary Change Notes as of 1 January 2010: pick Kansas (sorry, but I can't figure out how to link to an individual state's results) and you'll see that Andover annexed into Minneha Township, Sedgwick County on 27 July 2006. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention — Boundary and Annexation Survey information (whence the Geographic Boundary Change Notes originate) originates from information filled out on the local level: someone from Andover, Minneha Township, or Sedgwick County was responsible for telling the Census Bureau that this had happened. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have updated the link at Talk:Andover, Kansas. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

20,000 Total Edits

I finally crossed over the 20,000 edit mark in 17 months and 7 days since I first started editing Wikipedia. I'm currently ranked 2375 in number of active edits. Free Beer for everyone, oh maybe not, but its the thought that counts right. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

period

I'm a brit - is that like a full-stop? :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Call it what ever you want, but the ending "dot" was missing. I'm an American, so my description was correct from my point of view <grin>. See Full stop • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Secure Digital

Thank you for the barnstar! "Elegant" was the goal of my work and it's nice to read your opinion that it was achieved.

I'll work next on Section 4, "Types of cards," because much of what it says is either a repeat or would be better put in the section that defines the type of card in question. I'll leave it to you to find the right home for the photo, as you've been rearranging them recently. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC) PS--Have taken three hacks at it and boiled down a lot of stuff into a bulleted list (which is largely a restatement of stuff elsewhere in the article). Below the list is text that belongs in the "Interface" section--if anywhere, as it includes vagueness as to the behavior of MMC cards and the outlandish assertion at the end that a host device that could not bit-bang a card wouldn't have been able to do an 8-bit transfer. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

SDXC

Hi! The first sentence of Section 7 and the first two items of 7.1 describe three announcements over the same span of four days. I'd like to merge them--did these three things all happen at CES 2009? Do all three remain relevant? (I understand your note about not referring to sections by number, but it should be okay between my asking and your answering.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with you merging and stripping down as much as you like. Maybe 3/4 of the history could be removed too. The only really important history to me is the beginning announcment and when the first 64GB SDXC was announced, when was the first microSDXC announced, when was first SDXC reader announced. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS--What's a "launch" (from Sec. 7.1)? Does that mean product available or vaporware available? It seems CES 2009 was a giant promise-fest. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lauch usually means when it is suppose to be available, but companies mean different things, so ship date is only accurate dates. It is very typical that companies make announcements at trade shows...in advance of something being released...because all the press is at the show....this isn't anything special about CES 2009. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PPS--I deleted a repeat request above for additional details; they are clear from the links in the footnotes. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

UHS Speed Class

What's wrong with this section? It gives maximum transfer rates for UHS-I and UHS-II in both MB/s and Mbit/s, which differ by a factor of eight--and also restates that the host must select four-bit operation. Shouldn't the respective figures differ by a factor of two? Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

SD Specifications v3.01 only describes UHS-I, so it looks like they haven't released the technical details for UHS-II to the public yet.

See Section 3.9.2 (page 13):

Clock speed table on page 13, and data rate table on page 14. See these pages for your answer.

UHS-I Card Types:

• Supports UHS50 and UHS104.
• Supports SDHC and SDXC cards only.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; retrieved the spec and rewrote the section, deleting one dead footnote and mentioning DDR50. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Matthiaspaul

Would you please look at my query to this user? He edited the SDXC section, accentuating the controversy of the 4.0 decision to go with exFAT (which I softened) and asserting that some SDXC hosts might not be backward-compatible. Can you point me to the correct technical authority? Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some minor clarification edits to that section, but I'm sure it needs to be reworded in a more elegant way. I made a comment at User_talk:Matthiaspaul#Secure_Digital. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Given your warning that 4.0 is not out yet, we definitely should not use the Wikipedia article for polemic concerning it, as Matthiaspaul did originally. There are several other references to 4.0 as fact, which I am working on. My other query remains: Are SDXC host devices excused from supporting SDSC and SDHC if they are not "dual-controller" types? Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but there are drawings on the SDA website that show that hosts that support a new card types must also support older card types, thus a host that supports SDXC must also support SDHC and SDSC, or a host that supports SDHC must also support SDSC. Electrically for backward compatibility, old SDSC hosts can read SDHC and SDXC, but most usually don't because a lot of older devices don't get software updates. I'm not sure what you mean by "dual-controller"?

The term is one Mattiaspaul used at the start of the subsection "Compatibility with SDHC" that you edited. Your general rule is what I thought too. Given that, I am inclined to revert him and make the backward-compatibility statement categorical again. PS--I have already smoothed out text concerning 4.0, including yours, in three places. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I may not be up to date in regard to 4.0, but it is my understanding that SDXC cards are bound to use exFAT per definition in 3.0 as well (but I will have to look this up again - perhaps I'll find the time on the weekend). Of course, technically there would be no problem to use FAT32 instead, but consumer devices (like cameras, camcorders, etc.) supporting SDXC cards won't allow a user to format a SDXC card as FAT32 and won't accept cards reformatted as FAT32, since they expect exFAT. (At least I am not aware of any camera which would allow a FAT32 format on any kind of SDXC card.) Device manufacturers do this, because they want to be SDXC conformant (check list item). Consequently, users of these products are locked in, if the product does not support other card standards such as CF as well. If users want to use their devices, they will have to use exFAT, and if they use exFAT, they will have to switch to an exFAT-compatible (non-free) operating system, which in turn may even force them to buy new applications compatible with the new operating system and upgrade their PC as well. I consider this a major problem, as it cannot be in the interest of the consumers to be forced to use a sub-optimal solution when practically and technically better solutions are obvious (SDA to allow FAT32 on SDXC as well) or readily available (f.e. CompactFlash). I am not aware of any distinction here in regard to different versions of SDXC card specs, but I will have to look this up again.

Also, it is my understanding that a SD card host won't be able to access SDHC and SDXC cards, and a SDHC or SDXC host won't be able to access an SD card unless it has a dual controller supporting both standards. Most card readers have dual controllers so that it doesn't make much difference from the user's perspective. It does, however, make the design more complex than necessary and the whole mess could have been avoided had the SDA put more thought into the development of SD and SDXC card specs originally (for comparison: the CompactFlash card standard does not have any such problems, a CF 1 card can be used in a CF 6 host and vice versa). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

All I know about SDXC is what was in the article when I came along, so I thought it was FAT32 for 3.00 and exFAT for 4.00. But Simplified Physical Layer 3.01 (Sec. 3.3.2) says that "only hosts compliant to [itself] and File System Specification v3.00 (exFAT supported) can access SDXC." This implies that all SDXCs ship with exFAT. The only other reference to exFAT is in Sec. 4.13.2, which says that Speed Class specs for SDXC are based on exFAT, which makes it sound optional. Take it from there. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. What is this "dual controller" that you keep talking about? Please point me at a document. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
2. As described in the electrical spec, the host should be able to communiate with ANY card type (SDSC, SDHC, SDXC, SDIO) using either SPI-bus or 1-bit SD bus, especially with a microcontroller. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot comment on version 4 (I never talked about that spec), but, yes, exFAT is mandantory (not optional) for any kind of SDXC card so far, that's the very core of the problem. And while we may have to find better wording, IMO the article must make this fact clear in no uncertain words that if a consumer buys a device supporting Secure Digital cards as the only flash card option that the user cannot use the device with cards larger than 32 GB in conjunction with non-proprietary operating systems or with older PCs. It is not going to benefit the customers in short or long term. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Simplified Physical Layer 3.01 contains a flowchart for how to decide which type you have on the line. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

PS--Matthiaspaul has more edits Friday, to which I have made one clerical pass and commented on his talk page; hope you are tuned in. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy this weekend, so it will be late tonight or Monday before I can review things again. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

Good revert. But what Sanalmg may have been saying with his abortive attempt to create a Gallery is that the article contains too many redundant images of SD cards; he's right. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Warnings