Talk:List of solid-state drive manufacturers

External Links for list entries without Wikipedia articles

@Stesmo: removed and reverted two external links in this article that had been in the article for some time in accordance with this discussion. The removal of the links removed the WP:RS for inclusion of these two vendors on this list. There is nothing in WP:EL that precludes their use in this article in this manner and their usage does make the article more readable. The alternative would be to put the links in footnotes as is done in many cases but they too are candidates for EL instead of naked links in footnotes. Under WP:BRD I am returning the article to its original state and we can discuss it here. Tom94022 (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy on external links

these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.

Wikipedia:External links

@Stesmo:The policy seems to support such usage. Please explain why not. Tom94022 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tom94022: Wikilinks are included in the edit summaries to help you with this. I'll include the last one here and quote from it, bolding the key information: WP:ELLIST

External link sections are not prohibited at the end of stand-alone lists or at the end of articles that contain embedded lists. However, the lists themselves should not be composed of external links. These lists are primarily intended to provide direct information and internal navigation, not to be a directory of sites on the web. This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria. To determine whether an item should be included in the list at all, refer to the inclusion criteria for the list you are editing.

The fact that some of these list items fail to have wikilinks and instead have external links/spam links show they probably shouldn't be in this list at all. If these were notable companies, they'd have wikilinks to their own articles and those articles would undoubtedly have an external link to their company site. If they were notable and worthy of inclusion, at best they'd be a redlink with a citation from a reliable, third-party, published source instead of an external link to the company's site.

Stesmo (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELLIST also states: "... appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table." (emphasis added) Since this list is formatted as a table it seems clear that ELs are permitted and since the links do provide an RS for inclusion in the table where no article exists they also IMO are "appropriate." Using only Wikilinks or EL in the first column of this table also makes the article smaller, look better and easier to read, all of which suggests ELs are appropriate for this article. Tom94022 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)\

@Tom94022: It is clear we are at an impasse. While I'm WP:AGF, you seem to find it important to add external links to list entries that lack their own Wikipedia pages (either due to lack of notability or interest). This seems quite clearly against WP:EL and I'm not sure what I can add here in this Talk page to convince you otherwise. There is an EL Noticeboard where you can ask to change the policy to allow spam/external links in a list for list entries here: WP:ELN. As we have not reached consensus, I'm going to add the EL issues tag back. Please do not remove the maintenance tag without removing the External Links. Stesmo (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stesmo: If truly you practice WP:AGF and believe in WP:BRD then you will remove the EL issues tag since the tag does not allow for discussion. At this point we should wait for other editors to comment to see if there can be a consensus. Many editors have contributed to this article and they all seem to think it is appropriate to add companies to list that do not have associated articles. If the links are spam then the company is removed but AFAIK every EL is to an RS that establishes a company is appropriately listed. You claim such ELs are "quite clearly against WP:EL" in spite of the plain meaning of the language cited above which clearly states ELs are permitted by both WP:EL and WP:ELLIST. What you should do is request some form of help according to WP:CONTENTDISPUTE - I'll give you the opportunity to frame the dispute, but if you don't I will then take down the EL notice and initiate a dispute resolution. Tom94022 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I modified the article to link from the EL tag to this discussion. If the discussion with other editors cannot resolve this issue then I will initiate WP:CONTENTDISPUTE Tom94022 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a list article so Links in lists is the controlling policy as follows:

Policy on external links in lists

... a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table
... these links may serve as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources

WP:ELLIST

The assertion that usage in this article is "quite clearly against WP:EL" is wrong as well as disputable since this is a list article using tables the plain language of the quotes above show such links to RSes are permitted. Since the language is clear there can be no dispute and the tag is inappropriate and can be removed. If @Stesmo: has a different interpretation of this plain language then he should post it here so we can all understand his viewpoint. Tom94022 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, well, I disagree. The external links should all go out of the first column, replaced by wikilinks. All that are redlinks in that column should carry a reference to an independent and reliable source showing that they are worth mentioning. The way this list is formatted is just a WP:SPAMHOLE. As soon as I have time I will bring this list in line with those standards. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, well we disagree, but u really shouldn't change the article until there is consensus as to policy. I for one think redlinks with a reference are less useful than just an EL. As it turns out this list has both; if an editor wants more information the EL takes them directly to the RS, the redlink is an indirect link to the same place. I for one am willing to clean up the list when this dispute is resolved. BTW there is no evidence the list is a WP:SPAMHOLE, every link I check is valid. Tom94022 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, no, the policy and guidelines are the consensus. We do not link like that. This article is in conflict with those policies. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, links can be valid, but I will argue that many don’t belong here as they are not worth mentioning: if no-one outside of the company has written anything about them they do not belong in this list. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, and it appears you made the bold edit, were reverted, but did not go through BRD then, instead you insisted that it needs to be like you want it, and are now suggesting to change guidelines to support your choice. Can you please revert to the status ante? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, and the very undue primary references all have to go as well. This list is extremely spammy in this way. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra u are entitled to an opinion but not your own facts. Fact - there is little or no spam in this article and the 34+ editors that have contributed to this article will likely object to your attempt to delete all the redlinks and ELs. Likewise, I suspect the 34+ editors have a different opinion than yours about what is relevant to this article. Tom94022 (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, I go by policy. Lists of companies need independent reliable sources for redlinked items to establish membership in the list. All items are primary sourced, not independently sourced. Policy is with me to remove all of them, and guideline has been established to avoid this type of linking. Editors opinion do not establish what is relevantfor inclusion, independent reliable sources do.

You asked for an opinion at WP:EL, you are now not to choose when you don’t like those opinions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There is one opinion at WP:ELIST, yours, and it flies in the face of the plain language of the WP:ELIST section which clearly allows ELs. What is it about the language that you dispute? BTW, WP:EL is just a guideline and since the editors of this article have decided to use them any attempt by you to remove them prior to conclusion of discussion will be reported as vandalism. Tom94022 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, no, that is not mine. That is the one that has been created by consensus. It is a guideline, what is written there is ".. a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow".

And no, it does not fly against the plain language of the WP:ELIST section, the example there is does have .. low and behold .. external links in a table.

And that is a very chilling remark, plainly accusing user:Stesmo and me of vandalism. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the mis-statements above, other to ask Beetstra to stop shouting down this discussion and give other editors a change to engage. Tom94022 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a brand still a manufacturer?

For example OCZ Storage Selection:

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller
OCZ Storage Solutions	United States	No	Yes through its then parent Toshiba's joint venture with SanDisk, Flash Forward, Ltd., but absorbed into said parent	Yes, but absorbed into Toshiba	No	Yes, but absorbed into Toshiba

It is clear that today OCZ is only a brand of Toshiba so shouldn't the annotation to the Terminated status be: "Formerly ..." as below?

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller
OCZ Storage Solutions	United States	No	Formerly through its then parent Toshiba's joint venture with SanDisk, Flash Forward, Ltd., but absorbed into said parent	Formerly, absorbed into Toshiba	No	Formerly, absorbed into Toshiba

Unless someone objects I'm going to make such a change globally Tom94022 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Perhaps the page should see the addition of a brands list, as well. Axeyop (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is HP a manufacturer?

I'm on the fence about whether to add HP Inc. (not to be confused with Hewlett Packard Enterprise). It appears they manufactured HP-branded drives at one point ([1], [2]), but I don't see any evidence on their website that they do now. Did they get out the SSD business? Do their desktops and laptops still ship with HP-branded drives? – voidxor 00:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing company

Sabrent Technologies, based in USA. 76.245.204.69 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Regions of manufacture

The list currently shows the country in which the company is based. Manufacture locations are often multiple, and overseas from the company. For example, Western Digital is a company based out of the United States, however, their products are manufactured overseas in countries such as Malaysia, Taiwan, and China. Personally, the reason I was brought to this page was to see where the manufacture locations are as well. Axeyop (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)