Talk:Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing

Not an encyclopedic topic

The "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum era" is marketing speak, not history. The article is about NISQ devices and algorithms, that those devices and algorithms of quantum computing that fit under certain restrictions called "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices" or "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms". Those are legitimate encyclopedia topics and "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum era" could be a minor comment. The proper title here is "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing", a subtopic of quantum computing Johnjbarton (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I created the article under "Era" because that's how the term was coined. It can encapsulate the whole NISQ QC.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you agree that "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum era" is a shortening of "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing era"? That is, this title is an era of quantum computing? Then: are there any other eras? Do we see discussion of the eras and their characteristics? This does not seem like the best direction for the article at this point in time.

However, "the whole NISQ QC" does sound like a good direction and implicitly the direction the article has naturally grown. NISQ QC devices, NISQ QC algorithms, and NISQ QC era are subtopics. That is it the point I was trying to make. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong still. This is the WP:COMMON name. There are various proposed names by Preskill and coworkers including FASQ era, Megaquop era (between NISQ and FASQ) and ISQ era. It is name that suggest encapsulates the whole: computers, algorithms, strategies and more.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion most of the article is off topic: the article is about aspects of quantum computing not about an era. For example the article does not discuss "FASQ era" etc, which are related to "era", but it does talk about good stuff unrelated to "era". I think a better title would be "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing" and make this a proper subtopic of "quantum computing", not a subtopic of "era". Maybe 'NISQ era' is notable but it is minor compared to 'NISQ computing'.

Would you object to an entirely new article named "Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing" summarized in Quantum computing § Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing? Wouldn't much of this content be better in such an article? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't contest the name change just yet but Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction went on with it without discussing it. I still think the name was fine, as a historical period it made more sense.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)