Wikidata:Property proposal/L2 cache

L2 Cache

   Withdrawn

Description	Amount of L2 Cache of the CPU in Bytes (or maybe bits?)
Data type	Number (not available yet)
Domain	CPU
Example	Core2 Quad Q6600 (Q15218754): 8MB
Source	Intel website, for Intel processors
Robot and gadget jobs	Robots can gather info on the Intel website and fill the property with it.
Proposed by	MisterSanderson (talk)

Discussion

I want to add information to the CPU items, but there aren't enough properties to that. MisterSanderson (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support I created an item for the processor. Hopefully we will get both bit and byte in the numeric datatype. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I think this is best left until we have the number type, and know how it will function, because we may only need one generic property for "size in bytes" which can be used as a qualifier. So, for example, we may be able to claim that a CPU has part L2 cache with qualifiers, quantity = 2, size = 8MB. Let's not create 100s of properties for speeds and dimensions. Danrok (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On hold To be re-opened when the right datatype is available.--Micru (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson, Tobias1984, Danrok, Micru: So quantity datatype is now available, and we have megabyte (Q79735) and related items so in principle we can move ahead. However Danrok 's comments should be taken into account. We don't actually have any property (that I can find) that would give a generic "size" suitable for showing the number of megabytes, pixels etc - I think that property should be created first and may be all we need. Also I couldn't find an item corresponding to L2-cache: the only related one I think is cache (Q165596) (which has aliases include L2 and L3). Please look into some of these and let's have a more organized proposal for computing properties here! Is "has part" generally a suitable way to document the components of a CPU, camera, phone, etc, rather than having separate properties for each piece? That makes sense to me... ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a maximum capacity (P1083) property and this probably should become a generic "capacity" property, to be used to indicate how many things the item can hold, such as people, cars, bytes, etc. Danrok (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well maximum capacity (P1083) seems very specific to counting people, has constraints that would need to be modified, it's been used by a Russian project etc (see discussion page). I think a new more generic property is warranted. Maybe let's add it under Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic @Danrok: can you take care of making the proposal? Or maybe I will try later this week if it's not done yet. And @MisterSanderson: - what we are specifically proposing here is as an alternative to your property, to use the combination has part(s) (P527) with an item for "L2 cache" and a qualifier specifying "capacity" (size) in MB or GB or whatever appropriate unit. This seems reasonable to me and I think it's preferable as a rule to use more generic properties where they make sense. What are your feelings on the matter? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I could not understand what you said about not existing a generic size property.--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson: I think he was thinking like

⟨ proc ⟩ has part Search ⟨ L2 cache ⟩
size Search ⟨ whatever Mb ⟩

. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Support Only allowed unit should be byte (Q8799). --Srittau (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 Question @MisterSanderson: Why only L2 cache (and not L1)? Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lymantria, because it has been 3 YEARS waiting, I simply don't care anymore! If someone can please close this proposal so I can be left alone, I appreciate.--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I marked this proposal as withdrawn, since I don't expect it to get any traction if the proposer has lost interest. That said, I would support a new proposal. --Srittau (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)