Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force

Suggest to spin off Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (=the IT consortium) into article distinct from PC Card (=the hardware standard)

On 3 September 2013, User:Matthiaspaul made a major contribution to the PC Card article by creating the History section which, among the history proper of the PC Card standard, also includes detailed and well-supported information about its creators, viz. the PCMCIA Association.

While the Association as such and its (arguably) foremost standard are closely related, they are in my view nonetheless two distinct, well-definded topics on their own, and hence would deserve separate articles – linked back and forth, of course. This is by the way the approach taken in other-language WPs and would greatly increase the visibility of said information for other-language visitors coming from a (less detailed) "PCMCIA" / "Personal Computer Memory Card International Association" article in their own language, only to find to their surprise that there is technically no English equivalent at present!

I am aware that initially the two topics indeed had distinct articles in the English WP which were then merged in 2010, but at the time without any rationale or user discussion. So in the light of the arguments put forth above, and the development over recent years, I would suggest to separate the two topics again, and volunteer to do the handiwork involved.

Opinions/comments anyone? -- Thanks, HReuter (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. This proposal makes sense, IMO. I support it, in particular if you can add more information to the topics. The association is a distinct topic from its various products, of which PCMCIA cards were only one. And both are notable, so they deserve their own articles.

This would not only make it easier to cross-link between Wikipedias, but also improve our internal organization (orthogonality).

Also, the original merge was carried out badly with a much too short time for discussion and most of the contents in the former article not actually merged into the new target.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]