Talk:Magerit

Promotion

I think this article and the one on Supercomputing and Visualization Center of Madrid are self-promotional. It is debatable that the computer is the most powerful of Spain. It is the case according to the July 2011 TOP500 list, but after the release of the list another more powerful computer has been announced, as covered in third party news. I think that if the article emphasizes on rankings, this point should be covered. Otherwise, I suggest to write "one of the most powerful" instead of "the most powerful". My attempts to make the text less self-promotional have been reverted.129.105.199.91 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The TOP500 list is the woldwide reference of the most powerful supercomputers as Green500 is of the most ecological ones. These are the valid references to say that Magerit is the most powerful and ecological supercomputer of Spain in July 2011. If we consider announces, all of us can announce that our PC is the most powerful supercomputer of the world and I think this kind of biased asserts must not be included in Wikipedia. Include promotional information (seems to be a paid article in a magazine) about BSC without some reputable reference is vandalism. When the announced machine pass the TOP500 test we can compare the performance results and update the articles. --81.33.166.51 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that TOP500 is a reliable source and I see no problem with mentioning Magerit's position in the last list. But I think that if the article focuses so much on rankings and the relative performance of Magerit among Spanish computers, the fact that a more powerful system has been installed is relevant even if this system has yet to be ranked. This has been widely reported in the press (La Vanguardia, El Mundo, ABC, etc), not in "a paid article in a magazine". 71.57.95.91 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another machine appears in press [1] Do we must refer this in all supercomputer pages? And what happen if this machine never provides service? It seems to be more razonable to use TOP500 as the ranking reference for supercomputers and discard all announces in press. Also, both announced machines does not provide any real performance measures: they publish the peak teorical performance while all the performance check (Linpack, Specs...) use the real performance executing some kind of test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.33.148 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your English is so poor you should reconsider editing English Wikipedia articles. The quality of the English in the article also leaves much to be desired Maxjjazz (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magerit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.green500.org/cert/200711/275-CeSViMa-BSC200711.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.green500.org/lists/2011/06/top/list.php?from=1&to=100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101205922/http://www.indigoguide.com/spain/madrid-history.htm to http://www.indigoguide.com/spain/madrid-history.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.top500.org/system/performance/8241
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.green500.org/cert/200711/275-CeSViMa-BSC200711.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)