Talk:Supercomputing in China

A fact from Supercomputing in China appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that supercomputers in China rank first and third on the current Top500 list of the most powerful known computer systems in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

Computing High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggestion for future expansion and update[edit]

It would be good if those who read Chinese fluently and write English well could expand this article from the viewpoint of the relationship to the PHPC100 personal supercomputer. While Tianhe-1 is a fast machine, unlike most other supercomputers, it did not have a specific application in mind, and its main goal was development of the knowledge for building a really fast machine. That knowledge is likely to work its way down to new models of the PHPC100 type computer, pretty much the way knowledge gained through Formula One racing eventually works its way into passenger cars. So it would be good to set an example where information from Chinese sources gets updated into English Wikipedia over time. Much of the information on the PHPC100 is in Chinese, so a section on that in this article will be a good start, for this has the potential of changing the game for "personal supercomputing" where the impact will be far greater than the top levels of supercomputing. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See edits. Problem is understanding the technical content... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD and Relevance of Item[edit]

History2007, I don't understand why irrelevant information should be presented in this article - I have never seen Non-US top position super computers ever been given such treatment as to put future speculative "China beating" super computer in the article. I can only speculate its sour grape mentality because currently China sits on No.1 Position. If this is the case, then its perfectly okay to put any future speculative "American beating" super computers on the IBM Sequoia page as well ?? As I see it, those future speculative 'ranking' or super computer should be left out of the article. THIS IS WIKIPEDIA. We are here for the FACTS, not some speculation from the future. Spunking (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Spunking but I can not agree with you. As for the use of the term "sour grape mentality" that is not only speculative but also incorrect in my view. I see the information as relevant, given that the field is inherently fluid and there is no dispute about the correctess of the information. Your statement that it is "irrelevant" is your opinion and since we do not agree, your obvious remedy is to ask for a WP:Third opinion to obtain an independent view regarding its relevance - and I will hereby agree to respect said 3rd opinion. In the meantime, please respect the WP:BRD process and avoid a revert cycle. When two users do not agree, the remedy is a 3rd opinion, not a revert cycle. Please avoid reverts since that is the WP:BRD process. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion[edit]

Viewpoint by History2007: The dispute is about this deletion. The material is called irrelevant. Some of teh material was carefully added by other users, not myself, and gives a perspective. The factual accuracy of the information in question is not being disputed, and I am seeking an opinion regarding relevance. I see "no injury" done to Wikipedia readers by knowing about the new supercomputer, and given that it relates to high performance systems, I see it as relevant, and factually valid. The reader will just get a better perspective by having this information. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about relevance of final sentence in the article):

I'm assuming your dispute is over the last sentence in the article, namely: "It should also be noted that the "top spot" in supercomputing is not a permanent ranking and continues to change, for instance, the IBM Sequoia supercomputer scheduled for 2011 has an anticipated speed of 20 petaflops, well above current supercomputer levels." This sentence is sourced to an article in the Guardian. While this sentence is accurate, I also do not see the relevance of the statement in the context of this article. Firstly, the fact that the "top spot" in supercomputing is not a permanent ranking is exceedingly obvious; I think this is something we can safely assume the reader already knows. The fact that there are top 100 and top 500 lists implies that this is a rapidly changing field. Secondly, this is supposed to be an article on supercomputing in China, so we should only be mentioning supercomputers in other countries if there is a good reason to (i.e. if one of the Chinese supercomputers was based on a particular supercomputer in another country, or inspired by it, or was noted for competing with it, etc). Just mentioning a supercomputer out of the blue (which doesn't exist yet, bordering on WP:CRYSTAL) doesn't seem relevant to me. The article needs quite a bit of cleanup work, and I don't see this single sentence being a serious issue with the article (certainly not worth edit warring over), and whether it stays, gets deleted, or gets modified won't make much of a difference.—SnottyWong ^soliloquize 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what about this paragraph:

Although China has the fastest supercomputer in the world and the second most number of supercomputer in the TOP500, the US still has far more supercomputers in the TOP500 overall.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] As of November 2010, there were 42 Chinese supercomputers, compared to 275 supercomputers in the United States among the top 500.^[5] Apart from China and the United States, Japan, France and Germany are the other countries with a supercomputer ranked in the top 10 positions.

Please clarify that too. My suggestion: Please edit these two paragraphs as you see fit and let us be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that paragraph is a bit more relevant, as it is a direct comparison of China to other countries. I think it could be stated in a better way though. I'll see if I can come up with something. SnottyWong ^talk 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a pretty efficient 3rd opinion. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks. SnottyWong ^comment 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good fixes actually. And the table is worth 1,000 words - it highlights facts, e.g. about the UK. Now if you can dig up PCP 100 info, as discussed at the top of talk page, that would be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Snottywong two of the three articles on the specific centers need help. If you feel like making similar fixes there it will be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference bbc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference NYTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ BBC News
^ Top 500 list of supercomputers, June 2010

Article needs updating[edit]

This page hasn't been updated in something like 4 years. "by 2012" Someone who knows something about supercomputing please share your knowledge on China's stuff. All I know is that Tianhe-2 is now ranked first in the world as of Nov 2013. 14.53.186.168 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[bbc-1] Cite error: The named reference bbc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Guardian-2] Cite error: The named reference Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[NYTimes-3] Cite error: The named reference NYTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] BBC News

[top500-June2010-5] Top 500 list of supercomputers, June 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]