Talk:Multiplication ALU

I added a clean up tag. This article is way too opaque for the subject matter. The notation is terrible. Simpler examples are needed.--agr 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notation appears to be verilog, which may be a useful choice of notation for the kind of person interested in this article. JulesH 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an introductory segment for the non-engineers around (after all, if someone knows Verilog, they will know binary multiplication already... ). -- fbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.135.58 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging binary multiplier into multiplication ALU. Both of them talk about the same thing -- an electronic circuit that multiplies two binary numbers. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article called "Multiplication ALU"? It is not an obvious title. I have only ever heard such circuits described as multipliers. Is "ALU" supposed to indicate that this article is about integer multipliers or something? If it is, where did "Multiplication" come from? I suggest that the article be renamed to "Multiplier (computer arithmetic)", "Multiplier (digital circuit)", or something similar. Any comments? Rilak (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects: I assume you object to the proposed deletion of this redirect. Could you explain why, please, so I can take that into consideration when going to WP:RfD? The edit comment is not making it clear. Why is the fact that "this was a merge and redirect" relevant? Thank you! 23.83.37.241 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up all links to this article, but the lack of incoming links is not a sufficient reason for deletion of a redirect. I don't know what Aspects' objection is, but this article has a long edit history that documents the multi-year development (and copyrights) of the Binary multiplier article that it was moved to and now redirects to. That is a very strong reason to oppose deletion, per WP:RFD. I think you will find that is the outcome of a formal RfD, and your time, and the time of RfD reviewers, might be better spent elsewhere.--agr (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: I got rid off the links as a prerequisite to deleting the article, but the reason is that it's a stupid name that is never used in the industry and, although it's not ambiguous, it might give someone the false impression that it's a recognized technical term. As I said in the PROD notice, it's "WP:R#DELETE, criterion 8 (very obscure synonym)".

But your hint led me to WP:MAD, which explains the issue quite nicely. And I have to say, that although I still think it's a net minus to Wikipedia, it's sufficiently piddling that the reasons for keeping it (basically, a MedaiWiki technical limitation) prevail.

Thanks for the pointer! 23.83.37.241 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. For what its worth, the term may have made a little more sense when ALUs did not necessarily include a multiplier, e.g. the 74181 chip. But in any case, the existence of a redirect on Wikipedia should never be construed as some kind of endorsement of that term, e.g. the fact that Heady Lamar exists does not suggest that that is a valid spelling of Hedy's name. A major use of redirects is getting readers with a wrong term to the right page.--agr (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: I support redirects from plausible incorrect forms but this isn't even one of those. In the industry, the name that is universally used is simply "multiplier". The current binary multiplier is already an invented disambiguation, but a reasonable one. "Multiplication ALU" reads like someone tried really hard to contrive a term that didn't include the word "multiplier". Its not a term that someone searching for information would come up with. (Someone completely non-technical wouldn't know "ALU".) I've read huge amounts of technical and trade literature, both historical and current, gone to conferences, worked in the field, and running into this article is literally the first time ever I have encountered the "-tion" form used to identify the functional block.

Anyway it's moot, so it's not worth too much contemplation. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod since the article that was merged and redirected had significant edit history that should be kept. As I remembered later, WP:PROD cannot be used for redirects, so if you think the redirect still should be deleted, you need to start a WP:RFD. Aspects (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]