Talk:VIA CoreFusion

Article needs cleanup

Added cleanup tag. The English is broken, the content flawed and off topic, posts links to corporate websites instead of writing content, yet the author of the page thinks its perfect, and all attempts to edit the page are called 'vandalism' and reverted - HELP! We have a rogue editor called User:MureninC on the loose in the IT section!

Examples of what I mean:

CoreFusion should not be confused with platforms marketing initiative of other manufacturers,

Ungrammatical. Platform should be a singular, initiative should be plural.

Intel Viiv and Intel Centrino purely describe a marketing concept.

Not true. Centrino actually describes a specific chipset combination. Factually wrong claim. Read the WIKI write up. Its all there.

CoreFusion is a combination of parts already soldered together by the manufacturer of the said parts.

What User:MureninC is trying to say in his very badly broken English, is that CoreFusion is a single die processor / Northbridge chip. There is nothing 'soldered' about it. The chips are printed from silicon wafers in fabs - they are NOT soldered!

Timharwoodx 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all editors on English Wikipedia speak English natively, criticizing someone based on their grammar is unfair, not to mention unnecessary. It would've taken you less effort to correct the offending grammar than bring it up here.

Posting links to corporate web sites when those links are relevant, is allowed in Wikipedia. Links to VIA's product pages are very relevant to this article. "Instead of writing content" is not a valid criticism either, Wikipedia articles do not have to be complete, see WP:STUB. And neither does reverting someone else's edits constitute "a belief that the page is perfect", merely that the article was better before the edits were made.

I should also note that your edit summaries do not help in taking your edits seriously. Please be civil. If you are removing content from the article, state your reason, not "removed the rubbish". While accusing these edits of being vandalism conflicts with the assume good faith policy, it can be hard to assume good faith when the edit summaries are outright offensive.

On topic: I am admittedly not very knowledgeable on this hardware topic, but the lead section in the Centrino article does state just that: "Centrino, a platform-marketing initiative from Intel, [...]". Also, obviously chips can be soldered on a circuit board. -- intgr 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In response:

• But I corrected the grammar, and User:MureninC reverted calling my correction 'vandalism.' Thats what I object to. This left me with no other option but to put multiple tags on the page, and protest on the discussion page. If I spend the time to correct a page, I do not expect to be called a page vandal and reverted!
• I note the direct links to the VIA website have gone from the body text - something I regarded as marketing, apparently validating my view. Website links should be in an 'external links' section at the bottom, or as a reference.
• I agree chips can be soldered to boards, but Corefusion is a single die part. Its really all in the name. Two separate parts, integrated into one package - 'Corefusion.' So the text is still factually incorrect in this respect.
• I have no idea why Centrino is still in this article, as it defines a specific Intel chipset / processor combination, and and I can see no relevance to Corefusion whatsoever. I mean if thats okay, when not start talking about the AMD Athlon half way through the article? 'Corefusion should not be confused with the Athlon.....'
• WHY is there no technical discussion of the differences between Mark, Luke, and the forthcoming John parts? Any discussion of the technical challenge John has been for VIA, and why it has been delayed? I mean I could write such a description in a few minutes, but User:MureninC seems absolutely determined for me not to be able to edit this page, since I'm a 'vandal' apparently. Pages that lack technical engagement smack at marketing to me i.e. recycling corporate press releases into the WIKI.

In sum, since I was forced to tag this page, the edits made seem to support all the issues I had tried to correct, but had been reverted by User:MureninC. I'm just sorry we had to make such a fuss. I am one of the lead IT writers, and I'm just trying to make the best content I can. Thats all. Timharwoodx 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"the edits made seem to support all the issues I had tried to correct, but had been reverted by MureninC" You don't really have a good grasp on Wikipedia policies. Obviously, what you consider correct might not be considered correct by other editors. Be civil and build a consensus on the talk page, rather than resorting to personal attacks as you have thus far. I can clearly see why MureninC is refusing to respond to your apparent trolling.

"But I corrected the grammar" You did not correct the grammar, you just removed the section that you did not like. As I explained in my previous post, this can be interpreted as vandalism when coupled with your excessively offensive edit summaries.

"I note the direct links to the VIA website have gone from the body text" While you are correct, external links should not typically be found in the body sections [unless they're citations], you have to assume good faith, not blame them of advertising/marketing. You cannot expect that all editors are up to date with Wikipedia standards. And regardless, they still have the right to edit without having to tolerate personal attacks. (see also: don't bite the newbies) Note that I have civilly corrected this issue, and my edits were not reverted.

"I agree chips can be soldered to boards, but Corefusion is a single die part. Its really all in the name. Two separate parts, integrated into one package" I don't follow you on this one. First you say that CoreFusion is a single die, then you say it consists of two parts? And from the image on the article, it doesn't look like the components are built to be modular, so why is it wrong to say that they're soldered together?

"I have no idea why Centrino is still in this article" Obviously, because VIA CoreFusion is being contrasted to Centrino. I can see that you don't like this section, but refer to my first point.

"WHY is there no technical discussion of the differences between Mark, Luke, and the forthcoming John parts?" Because Wikipedia depends on volunteers. You cannot blame somebody for not writing a longer article.

-- intgr 08:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if grammar is broken, then removing the offending lines is correcting the article. But I still think only content written in coherent English should be acceptable in the WIKI. Otherwise it makes the WIKI look bad to anyone who stumbles across aforesaid page. I still don't see any real excuse for reverting broken Engish. If an error is highlighted, even if by deletion, surely the responsibility is of the original contributor to fix it? You can get computer grammar checkers i.e. Microft Word. I simply don't have time to fix everything in the WIKI. User:MureninC has implied in posts its up to me to go around and fix his English, so that what he meant is clear. I don't accept that. If he can't write content in grammatical English, obviously not his first language, he really should not be editing the English langauge WIKI. I don't edit the German WIKI, because I don't speak German! Common sense.
• Well, a motherboard typically has a supporting chipset, and CPU, among other components. These are normally manufactured separately, because it makes updating the parts with new revisions easier. With Corefusion, VIA has taken two parts normally manufactured separately, the CPU and Northbridge, and integrated them into the same die. Kinda an economy of scale, if you wish. We know the board needs both parts, so lets make them in a single batch.
• Read the WIKI article on Semiconductor fabrication.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication

• Thats the manufacturing process. It involves printing dies from silicon wafers. If you read the packaging section, I think User:MureninC is getting confused (as per usual) with how things were manufactured 20 years ago, pre ceramic / plastic packaging. Soldering is no longer used. So even the WIKI itself confirms User:MureninC is entering factually incorrect information about modern semiconductor manufacturing. Don't take my word for it, take the WIKI!
• Centrino is simply off topic. Why not compare Corefusion to every Intel processor ever made, and write a 5,000 word article? Would that actually be readable / useful to anyone? Well, no, of course not. Surely any given article should be relevant to the title? An article on Corefusuion, should be about Corefusion. There is enought to talk about, but the article presently has close to zero technical content.... which leads to the last point.....
• Well, all my changes get reverted to this page. In one draft I stated to write up the differences between Mark, Luke, John, but got reverted. I got discouraged, and decided I had no choice but to tag the page and protest on the discussion page.
• I've watched User:MureninC's work, and he tends to confuse marketing with technical details. That what annoys me. He says whenever VIA issue a press release, the WIKI should create a new page. I say, we should only have a new page, if its a new product. If its the same old product with a new name, it does not deserve a new page. I don't see the WIKI has a duty to recycle corporate press releases.
• Finally, lets get one thing straight here, User:MureninC called my work 'one of the worst pages in the WIKI' - slandering me, then proceeded to add factual errors to the article, not present in any of my drafts. Don't think he is some innocent. I've worked hard on the IT section, and I don't see why I should be slandered, then have my work undone and degraded. Does that help? Timharwoodx 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would really not like to take this argument any further. For the record, I do realize that dies are not soldered, I was assuming that soldering chips on the motherboard was what it was trying to convey, but you cleared that up.

I already mentioned that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to be civil. I don't have a good grasp on what has gone on between you and MureninC, but I don't think his criticism to articles written by you justifies your personal attacks; I'm not saying that he has acted perfectly either, as I do not know the circumstances. However, I think you should attempt to take people seriously and be civil. That's what I do, I attempt resolve conflicts civilly even if people attack me personally (as you just repeatedly did on another talk page!). Also note that the article isn't owned by MureninC. If your edits had adhered to various Wikipedia policies, he wouldn't have a basis for reverting them.

To prevent other editors from reverting your edits when you are still working on them, use the {{wip}} tag while you're editing the article -- intgr 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this page?

All that fuss, and all we've got a couple of sentences of content, with almost all my previous criticisms of content now accepted. So... er.... given the Corefusion is just a C3 printed on the same die as a VIA Northbridge, why did we need a new page? That could have been explained easily enough on the C3 page, as a minor heading, half way down. Which was how I originally wrote the C3 page. We've now got several pages of nothing in the VIA section. Its a shambles. Timharwoodx 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see this page has still gone no-where, 2 years after I flagged up problems with it. It should be a referral page to the C3 article. Timharwoodx (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)