Wikidata:Property proposal/cache l1-l2-l3

cache l1, cache l2, cache l3 and cache l4

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn

Description	CPU cache memory
Represents	CPU cache (Q352090)
Data type	Quantity
Template parameter	|Cache L1=, |Cache L2= and |Cache L3= in Ficha de hardware infobox.
Domain	processors
Example 1	Intel Core i7-6700 (Q28739510) → "Cache L1" → 256 KB → "Cache L2" → 1 MB → "Cache L3" → 8 MB
Example 2	AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (Q28972980) → "Cache L1" → 384 KB → "Cache L2" → 3 MB → "Cache L3" → 16 MB
Example 3	UltraSPARC III (Q2628825) → "Cache L1" → 64 KB → "Cache L2" → 1 MB
Planned use	Inmediately, for the given infobox

Motivación

Part of my infobox improvements. CPU/SoC Cache L1, L2, L3 and L4 are missing in Wikidata and are relevant for CPU-related articles. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support David (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I think we need three properties for this or do we want to work with qualifiers? --GPSLeo (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• See Q56062710#P2670 and Q51963118#P2283. @Dhx1, GNUtoo: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'll discusse at Wikipedia how to use qualifies for Lua-based infoboxes. Meanwhile, I'll leave this request opened. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

• See also Wikidata:Property proposal/L2 cache. @MisterSanderson, Tobias1984, Srittau: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• The proposal has been withdrawn, in part, because the three properties should be requested at once. We have memory capacity (P2928), but once I find ways to add qualifiers to infoboxes, I'll request individual properties instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment You're suggesting three properties here. I wonder if we need three separate discussion pages. John Samuel (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• This, because them represent the same. See my above answers. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Some processors include a L4 cache, see for example w:en:Coffee Lake#Mobile processors. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• If needed: L1 cache (Q28972913), L2 cache (Q12635161) and L3 cache (Q28972917). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • L4 cache (Q76683717) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Question How about AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (Q28972980) has part(s) (P527) L2 cache (Q12635161) with qualifier memory capacity (P2928) 3 MB ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• We need to establish what property use for storing those qualifiers. has part(s) (P527) seems to be fine, but other alternatives has been already proposed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• I like this Visite fortuitement prolongée's proposal. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment instead of multiplying the properties "(Lx-cache)" , I’d prefer
  ⟨ subject ⟩ has part Search ⟨ L1 cache ⟩
  size Search ⟨ 64 KB ⟩
  . So tend to  Oppose. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Yes please! I was about to add this as a proposal as well! --D-Kuru (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• See also Wikidata:Properties for deletion#P2157 about how a specialised computer property can be allowed in Wikidata or not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --SixTwoEight (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Question Is this something that will be included or not. I want to use this property in several datasets and that stalemate hinders me quite a bit. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @D-Kuru: The proposal is not well-formed: it is not clear if the proposal is for 1 or 3 (or now 4) properties; in either case the examples are not clearly defined. So as it stands this proposal is not moving forward. Somebody could work on fixing it to be conformant. However, Visite fortuitement prolongée and TomT0m have an alternate model described in the above discussion that can be used now, so I suggest following that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• As proposed by Visite fortuitement prolongée, I think this proposal should be closed in favour of his alternative. @Tinker Bell: por favor actualiza la Ficha de hardware, tanto el módulo como la documentación. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: Hecho. Puedes comprobarlo aquí. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 04:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)