Talk:Memory access pattern

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Memory access pattern 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 Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unnamed section

I'm unsure that this deserves a page but i like the idea of having clear definitions, and just run into trouble r.e. glossaries, so i gave this a go.

this would seem to cover material in 'locality of reference', however it's all from the perspective of the "memory access pattern", the thing that you change to improve 'locality of reference'. one is the cause, the other is the effect? my thinking is definitions of specific phrases would wikipedia a better AI resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmadd (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As visible from my edit, creating unreferenced articles actually isn't that helpful. Please note that we need reliable sources for new articles, which also confirm that the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate article. That's how Wikipedia works. By the way, we'd also need references for the glossary pages, no matter how straightforward it might be to define some of the terms. Also, please remember to sign your posts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]