Talk:Apex

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Anyone know why an apex ticket is named as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.127.48 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 July 2007

Are you referring to an Advance-Purchase Excursion fare? Dicklyon 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGEIA Adaptive Physics EXtensions (APEX) citations http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=AGEIA+Adaptive+Physical+EXtensions+(APEX)+Development+Platform&spell=1 --Ramu50 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to have a disambig item added for that, get the mention of it, with reference to the source, into an article first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Wikipedia never stated that dismaiguation require any sources or references, because it is not an article. Second of all I have edit a lot disambiguation that contains red links an so far no one seems to have a problem with it, but you, therefore your action what you think is right is WP:OR.

Examples

• Bean_(disambiguation) (section Slang / jargon)
• GDC
• ICE
• Pan

--Ramu50 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my recent fixes to those. Thanks for pointing out the problem, but it was mostly not redlinks, just lots of non dab items (no support in linked articles). Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are meant to point users to different articles that share the same/similar name(s). Including something w/o an article makes no sense whatsoever. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in turns your reply doesn't support anything of whatever thing you are trying to say or support. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu, please read

Ramu, multiple editors with rather more experience than you, have called into question your edits. Does that not raise any flags for you, that perhaps you are doing something incorrectly? We have plainly demonstrated the reason for keeping the item in question off this page, and you obstinately refuse to cooperate with consensus. Why is that? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu, if you need help reading

To hell with you with your idoicracy look down on the other people, still rv end of story if you don't want to discuss or can't given any evidence on the side of the story. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my offer for help, you offer a "to hell with you"? I don't see what your issue is, but if you can't be civil (see

WP:CIVIL), we're not likely to resolve it. Hence my final warning on your talk page. Please discuss it here, or leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Template:FOSS
• Template:Nvidia

In terms of notability guidelines it also meet the criteria since it is a direct competitors against ATI Havok physics developement which is known to the majority. Both ATI and Nvidia have develop free utilities / libraries so you there should be absoustely no reason why it can't be included.

ATI has even made a special for Developement Libraries and so does Nvidia. Nvidia didn't included, because it is copyrighted under Standford University BSD License. http://developer.amd.com/gpu/rendermonkey/Pages/default.aspx. Also the Brook+ already has an article BrookGPU in Wikipedia and by removing, it shows that your a fascists against free trade competition which is already violating the law, since I assume that your already knows the laws of copyright infrigement, false accusing charges.

Extra References Notability

• TG Daily
• Softpedia both are Globally known if you go look at their ranking in Alexa.

Red links
Shortcut:
MOS:DABRL 
A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation  
page when another article also includes that red link. There is no need to brainstorm all  
occurrences of the page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be 
written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if another 
article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the 
left side of the page to see if any other articles use the red link. See Help:What links here 
for more information.

--Ramu50 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had added an item with a redlink, then we could have checked whether that link also appeared elsewhere and was reasonable. But you added an item with no link at all; there's no case in which that is within the prescribed style, as far as I'm aware. Since you've found that section, you should know what needs to be done at a minimum. By the way, I checked your two links above, and found nothing about APEX or Adaptive Physics. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is an Ageia article, but it doesn't mention APEX. Is it the same as PhysX? Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APEX is not mention by majority of the news reporting companies, because they don't the insider news right now, if they publish false information they could get sued easily, since ATI and Nvidia is already unhappy about the price fixing settlement issues which cost them 2 million. On the APEX topic, my understanding thus far is as follows

Nvidia bought Aegia (they thought about implanting Aegia Instructions Sets onto the GPU itself), however, since ATI is dominating at a rate that is threatening too much of their companies' division especially in chipsets and graphic cards. Implanting GPU would be very hard since the entire microarchitecture would change.

Also since GPU is heavily dependent on the development of parallel event-driven architecture since RIVA TNT. Reason

• First they have no Fab, and since EVGA has left Nvidia, no one want to partner up with Nvidia, if any companies did partner up, it almost a gurantee privitizations.
• Reason 2, virtually all GPU since RIVA TNT is heavily dpendant on event-driven architecture...............BUT there is no university that teaches that courses, besides University of Illinois

Note: Note that before ATI dominate Nvidia, Nvidia appointed Illnois as center of excellence and invested a great deal of money for course development, but since it is delaying too much and ATI new FirePro is really putting the pressure to the limit, Nvidia has no choice but to let Aegia develop their own thing.

Summary

They decide to let Aegia develop its own platform (aka APEX, which is probably a library (meaning an extensions like browser plug-ins...etc. or an application framework). --Ramu50 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu, thanks for trying to explain. But try to understand disambig page policy, too. You need an article to link to, or the minimum, you need an article that contains a link to a non-existent article. If you have sourced information to add, you can add it to

WP:3RR, so please don't keep this up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In terms of structure both of your versions has no strucutre. They are just a bunch of random list that doesn't have any type user friendliness (by that mean I mean chronological, alphabetically, categorize by topics or whichever methods you choose). This is both of your last warning. If you guys don't like my style of editing, than edit in a way that has a "strucutre." Because the current version you guys keep on insists is not following the dismabiguation guidelines. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can address the structure better if we settle the basics first. I'm sure it can be improved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved from User: Talk page

I reverted again. I didn't check what other items he may have added in his re-org, but if any remain that are not valid disambig items, please do remove them. And I requested admin intervention for the disruption after final warning. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if he added them, they may well have been pre-existing, but one was a town and another was a cartoon (or some kind of) character. I removed them; we might as well clean the page while we're doing this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we be removing articles that already exists, that is a bias action and you have no right to remove that. This is Wikipedia not your own website, you follow the Wikipedia policy, NOT keeping only what you want. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is removing articles. Removing inappropriate items from disambiguation pages is a normal maintenance activity that many editors work on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a computing item inappropriate. Load of crap. By the info I only provided for Ageia Item, because you ask what it was and I thought you don't understand much about computers. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not what's inappropriate. What's inappropriate is an item in a disambig page that doesn't link to an article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside anything else, is there consensus that the list here is long enough that it's worth using level-2 headers to separate the various categories and not just bold? This is in line with the MoS's view on long lists and gives us a TOC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a situation where a tocright would help, to clue the reader that there may be more than is initially visible. I would wouldn't go to a large number or multiple levels of fine-grained sections. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike tocright unless the number of sections is of a truly unmanageable length (20+). I agree that fine sectioning is probably fine though. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do find it, you won't be able to revert all the disambiguation since I have already seen more than 30+ disambiguation using it already. They are more users in the WikiProjects Disambiguation promoting it rather against it.

Disambiguation like GDC I don't intend on keeping all the 20 entries, but I think they are some entries that already exists in Wikipedia but the "GDC" acronym / abbreviations is informal and rarely used. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When giving a definition of a type of thing (i.e., apexes) as opposed to an instance of that type (e.g., the apex of Mt. Rushmore) in a sentence, what does one say?

1. "An apex is the highest point of something."
2. "The apex is the highest point of something."

Bkonrad, you need not comment here; we already know our two opinions cancel out. —

Nearly every dictionary uses the definite article in comparable constructions. With something as the direct object, there is only one apex.

Merriam-Webster

• the uppermost point
• the narrowed or pointed end
• the highest or culminating point
• the point of sharpest curvature in a path (such as that followed by a turning vehicle)

Cambridge Dictionary

• the highest point or top of a shape or object
• the highest point or most successful part of something

Collins Dictionary

• The apex of an organization or system is the highest and most important position in it
• The apex of something is its pointed top or end

Britannia Dictionary

• the top or highest point of something

and so on, I've yet to come across any dictionary that uses "an apex ..." older ≠ wiser 18:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this arises from this edit in which Jacobolus wanted to include a brief definition. For the record, I don't actually care whether there is such a definition, but if there is one it should use the definite article. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, no dictionaries give definitions as complete sentences; they just give noun phrases. "the apex" is a noun phrase, not a sentence. What we're dealing with is a sentence, with a subject, verb, and object. You can see how the "the" of the noun phrase given by a dictionary is still there in the full sentence "An apex is the highest point of something." If you figure out that your argument here is flawed, you're welcome to follow

bad idea 18:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but no. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "no dictionaries", are you discounting the Collins Dictionary examples above? pburka (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure my opinion helps you two settle this, but while both sentences seem grammatically correct, “The apex is the highest point of something” seems clearer and more direct to me. Whenever the word apex is used there is always some implied context in which it is the single highest point. –jacobolus (t) 19:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, consider some conceptually similar terms Nadir (disambiguation) or Zenith (disambiguation). With apex, where there is a singular object (regardless if it is a nonspecific something), there is only one apex (at least in ordinary usage). older ≠ wiser 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My answer: It depends on context. If you are defining the word apex, you need to use the indefinite article: "An apex is [definition of an apex]." If you have some specific object in mind, or if the rest of the sentence provides a specific object (even one that itself has an indefinite article) then you need to use the definite article: "The apex of a mountain is its highest point". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Each article has a specific and necessary purpose. Primergrey (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences are grammatical in English. I can see why you would say "The apex of something is yada yada" (there's after all only one apex in this something), but when you define a new term it's much more natural to introduce it with the indefinite (you're not presupposing your addressee will already know the apex is normally unique (though it does not need to be unique: what if the two highest points are the same height?)). See how that's done for example in the opening sentence of our article about capitals [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a question of meaning than grammar. "An apex of a mountain is..." suggests, incorrectly, that a mountain can have more than one apex. Because the apex of any particular mountain is uniquely determined, "The apex of a mountain" is a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, true, but I had the narrow context in mind (defining "apex", not "apex of X"). If someone asks you "What's an apex?", you're not going to begin with "The apex is...". – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We're inconsistent. A head is the part of an organism which..., but The tail is the section at the rear end. Either article seems to be accepted. "An" apex may have a stronger case because, at this point, we are discussing any of the many apexes in the universe rather than the one apex atop some particular object. Certes (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the uppermost point
• the narrowed or pointed end
• the highest or culminating point
• the point of sharpest curvature in a path (such as that followed by a turning vehicle)

Cambridge Dictionary

• the highest point or top of a shape or object
• the highest point or most successful part of something

Collins Dictionary

• The apex of an organization or system is the highest and most important position in it
• The apex of something is its pointed top or end

Britannia Dictionary

• the top or highest point of something

All of the sentence fragment definitions should begin with "An apex is..." The Collins sentences use the because they are referencing something. This is what David Eppstein was talking about earlier. Primergrey (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Eppstein and Primergrey for the reasons they articulate well. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right: "An apex is the highest point of something" (to be used when explaining/defining what an apex is); but "The apex of his political career was..." (to be used in articles about specific things that happen to have an apex, although probably not mountains, because you should normally use the geology-specific terms of peaks and summits then). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @David Eppstein, @Primergrey, @Markworthen and WAID. Context matters. Closing the issue into one box or the other is a big fat mistake. Huggums537 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]