Talk:Real-time

Disambiguation

Many of the links here don't seem to have an unambiguous target article. I'm wondering whether phrases such as real-time information (Intermodal Journey Planner), real-time alerts (Autonomous Detection System), real-time notifications (IMAP IDLE) should be wiki linked at all. I'm tempted to remove a bunch of links in other articles to this page but thought there should probably be some discussion first. --Kvng (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Often I thought incoming links were referring to valid but vaguely-named concepts and this dab page didn't really offer any relevant targets. I discovered articles for some of these topics which I added to the dab page (On-the-fly, Live streaming, Real-time web). In your examples, perhaps "immediate" or "on-the-fly" is more descriptive than "real-time", or the word "real-time" is redundant. (Why would you send a delayed alert of a hazard?) I think unlinking is sometimes okay, depending on the particular concept. Vadmium (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

After examining the Wikipedia article(s) surrounding real-time over several years, and as much as I admire the entire Wiki effort, the volunteer commitments, and the many exemplary results,- the situation here is little short of dismal. The comments by Kvng certainly ring true. Vadium also makes a stab (though I have not studied the historical talk page entries). However, rather than getting wrapped around the flag pole on this (to my mind) with regard to the crucial concept of real-time, it would be preferable if Wikipedia were to adhere to the contemporary accepted definitions (after a long history of research and project use) that reflect best practices. There are a number of experts in the field who, if they so chose, could rectify this situation. I can hazard several guesses as to why none to date have chosen to do so (lack of interest apart from sole or joint contributions to scholarly transactions, journals, and conference proceedings; Wikipedia contributions not a venue for research; articles must be couched in terms at least likely to be understood by non-experts rather than peers; of no value in "publish or perish" arena for tenured advancement; time needed to absorb and conform to the Wikipedia Style Manual, away from teaching and funded research efforts; contention with later edits by non-experts and the concomitant exasperation; etc.) There now exists to my knowledge(at least) two textbooks and not just research papers, for senior university undergraduates as a technical elective and for graduate students, on this subject that go a long way in clarifying all the issues [1,2]. If no one steps forward soon, as a published researcher now retired in this field, and after studying with practicing on the style manual, I'll give real-time systems: computing, a fair go. Please see my talk section and I apologize now for any and all omissions and commissions of error wrt Wiki etiquette.

[1] Real-Time Systems, Jane W.S. Liu, April 2000, ISBN-10: 0130996513 Prentice Hall Publ.

[2] Real-Time Systems and Programming Languages: Ada 95, Real-Time Java, and Real-Time C/POSIX, 3rd Edition, A. Burns, A. Wellings, 2003, Addison-Wesley Publ.

Kenfowler1945 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Ken Fowler, PhD.

Old page history

I have moved some old page history that used to be at the title "Real-time" to Talk:Real-time/Old history. Graham87 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

the troublesome hyphen

To me real time is a noun and real-time (or realtime) an adjective. We use nouns for article titles. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s not just to you. It’s the English language and Wikipedia Manual of Style. Stephan Leeds (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Real-time → Real time – Titles must be nouns, not modifiers; disambiguation page and redirect are backwards. Stephan Leeds (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• • I don't understand this rationale at all. Almost everything on this page appears to use a hyphenated real-time and the page should simply reflect what the articles being linked to use. SnowFire (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    • The reason almost everything on the page uses hyphenation is that none of those listed titles use only those two words to refer to their subjects; the words are always being used as a compound modifier of some noun. Indeed, none of those articles are about real time itself; they are all about something that involves real time. It is a WP:set index article, not a disambiguation page; none of those topics are referred to simply as "real-time" or "real time". None of those listed examples are about the topic itself. See also Talk:Real-time#the troublesome hyphen. I agree that the hyphen should be removed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
      • I don't think set-index articles are that different from disambiguation pages, ultimately. If almost all the terms are done in one style, the page should match that style. I'd rather have the full discussion. SnowFire (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
        • FYI, I submitted an RM for the hyphenless outlier Real time Java. (I also submitted one for Livestreaming.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

        All article titles are required to be nouns. Real-time is not a noun. Real time is the noun, therefore that’s the correct title. Stephan Leeds (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

        • This doesn't sound right. Wonderful is an adjective but has a disambiguation page for uses of specifically "Wonderful". It sounds like you think that all of these usages should be moved to the Wonder disambiguation page instead, the noun form? Is that accurate, or am I misreading you? SnowFire (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
          • When it is the name of an album, a song, or a band, Wonderful is a noun. "Real-time" is not used as the name of anything. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
            • I guess I picked a bad example, but suppose for the sake of argument that there were articles titled "Wonderful computing", "Wonderful clock", "Wonderful Control System" about clocks filled with wonder etc. It seems like those might be valid to place at the Wonderful disambig page, not the Wonder disambig page. But that's just me. SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
              • That's part of what was bugging me about this page in the first place. I thought the topics shouldn't be listed there, since they were only WP:PTMs, but then I noticed it was a set-index article rather than a disambiguation page. I'm still not convinced the article should exist. It's sort of an expanded WP:DICTDEF more than anything else. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:NOUN policy is much less strict here than what seems to be said. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

following this discussion, I have merged Real-time (disambiguation) into Real-time. I think given that, the page could now be moved to Real time, as a more "natural" noun title without the hyphen, but others may disagre...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The result is a disambiguation page that includes a lot of WP:PTM topics – things that involve the concept of real time, but are not themselves called "real time" (or "real-time"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This article, which is now a disambiguation page, should be listing topics known as "real-time" or "real time". Although many of the topics listed here are hyphenated, most of them are WP:PTMs that are not really referred to as "real-time" or "real time" and just should be removed or at least put under "see also". The noun form should be "real time". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  It’s a bad title. The title is an adjective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As most of the entries have the dash, the proposed would be unhelpful, more prone to confuse. Suggest instead Real-time …. Also refer to perennial suggestion that all disambiguation pages be suffixed with “(disambiguation)”, as they are not proper articles, for consistency among disambiguation articles and transparency to the readers, and repudiate the bad practice of WP:MALPLACED. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Or Real-time (adjective). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. For what it's worth, when I wrote the above comments during the technical request, this page consisted nearly exclusively of the "real-time" variant with the "real time" variants on a separate page. Now that they're merged together... meh. No opinion now, both titles work since both match half the entries. (I think the merger was a good idea though, the old distinction was too narrow.) SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Disambiguation page titles don't have to be nouns. See, for example, Closed. A disambiguation page title only has to be a likely search term which is ambiguous. This is similar to how the rule against non-Latin scripts, which ostensibly applies to all titles, doesn't forbid disambiguation pages (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/山州). In this case I have no clear preference for real-time or real time overall. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Adumbrativus. (Yes, I know that's a comment, but I agree with what is being said) Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 15:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.