Talk:X86
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X86 Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis Template:Lowercase title
- REDIRECT Template:Archives
Nintendo Switch is NOT x86
It's clearly specified in the article page, whoever wrote that opinion clearly has some reading disability or is practicing his/her skills on NewSpeak when he/she applies for INGSOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.162.72 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- To which opinion are you referring? If you're referring to
- As of 2021, most desktop computers, laptops and game consoles (with the exception of the Nintendo Switch[1]) sold are based on the x86 architecture,
- then it explicitly notes that the switch isn't x86, complete with a reference demonstrating that. If you're referring to the claim as a whole, there's a call for a citation on that. Guy Harris (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
'Open' in infobox
The information regarding whether or not x86 is open source really belongs within article text, rather than being 'litigated' in a lengthy infobox entry. From my limited understanding, the only 'open' aspect is in regard to expired patents, in which case it would revert to 'public domain' as opposed to 'open source'.
References are generally discouraged in infoboxes, and it has two, along with a 'citation needed' tag! I'm not a subject matter expert on the distinctions revolving around openness, patents, etc. (as above), so ideally someone more experienced would likely do a better job than I could. I think the entry should simply be listed as 'Mixed', with that word being a wikilink internal to where it's discussed within this article. That said, if nobody who comes forward to address this, I'll soldier on and try to do it justice myself. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".