Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Computer science articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've begun a separate list of missing computer-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am inviting comments regarding the following articles:

• Tao Yang (Wuxi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Physical linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Computational verb theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Computational verb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Computational verb logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Journal of Computational Cognition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hans Adler 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Experts on cricket and video games have decided that this isn't the most important single-track operating systems conference. WP:CONSENSUS of the WP:RANDYs. What else can I say... Pcap ping 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged John Ousterhout and Mendel Rosenblum as unref'd BLPs. I don't have time to work on them myself. Pcap ping 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I fixed Rosenblum, 'cos it was quick. Pcap ping 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a theoretical computer science prof, but perhaps better known for his LaTeX packages. Pcap ping 01:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Initialization (programming) was just created but I don't really see how it is different from Declaration (computer science). I think any information that's unique to the new article should be merged to the other. I'm quite certain they don't both need to exist. I thought I'd let your project sort this out... thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely distinct things, though not sure either needs its own article. Could probably merge initialization into Variable (programming) as a "Variable initialization" section. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised anything existed outside of a variable (programming) article. This isn't my project, so I'll let someone else handle it. I hope someone can make it right! thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise are requested!

A user is Requesting feedback on an article related to computing, if you can help out please do so here: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Input/Output Control System.

WP:FEED provides general feedback about the quality of articles, helps users add references and such to get new pages higher on the quality ladder. Best regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 08:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it seems wikipedia only knows about boolean circuit and the circuit complexity page is about boolean circuit complexity. Indeed when speaking of "circuit complexity" in computer theory, one can assume it is about boolean circuit if nothing else is said. But I'm surprised not to see informations about any other kind of circuit.

I just added a page Integer circuit and would appreciate to have some feedback. And I also wrote a circuit page in my draft section. Boolean and integers circuit are just two specials case of circuit, so I guess circuits in computer theory deserve an article. Can you tell me if you think it indeed deserve an article; what do you think of my article; and since circuit is already used, what name should I give to the page, is "Circuit (computer science)" correct ? Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eight queens puzzle solutions is being discussed for deletion here. I removed the prod because I remember the solutions as being notable for many in computer science, although it could be argued that the parent article (Eight queens puzzle) is sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The table "8-bit two's-complement integers" at the start of the article is offset and needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdelong123 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this WikiProject should be merged to WP:COMPUTING, shouldn't it? -- ekerazha (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To what end? In the past WPCS participants have expressed a fairly strong feeling that the scopes of the Computing and CS projects are different. A while back someone proposed a shared talk page banner with the WP:COMPUTING project, but the participants in this project weren't even prepared to to do that, let alone merge the projects. You can find other discussions of the differences between the two projects here and here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the scopes of WP:COMPUTING (from their page) is Computer Science. I think the difference is not so clear, example: the Talk:Comparison of web application frameworks article is tagged for WP:COMPUTING, while the Talk:Model–View–Controller article is tagged for WP:COMPSCI. For the first article, one of the comparison items is "MVC? Yes/No". I think the two articles are correlated, but they are tagged to different WikiProjects. -- ekerazha (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So tag them as both. Or fix the tags as you see appropriate. Tagging of articles like that tends to be a bit scattershot. Although in this case I think it's probably right. A web app framework is a kind of tool used for designing a web applications - as such it falls into the broad WP:COMPUTING scope. In contrast, MVC is an approach to structuring software, which may be used by web app frameworks but also by other kinds of software - as such, it's a "principle" of sofwtare design, and falls more into the scope of WP:COMPSCI (which is more about principles than specific implementations).

As for the rest of your argument, are you also suggesting that

• Wikipedia:WikiProject C++
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer networking
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming languages
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ruby
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Java

all be merged into WP:COMPUTING? They all lie within the scope of computing. Several are specifically mentioned in the same list that you see "computer science" in. Note that the WP:COMPUTING project page specifically says "We have a very broad scope, so we hope to collaborate and communicate with other Wikiprojects that overlap our domain."

--Allan McInnes (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Computing is not the MCP of all computer-related Wikipedia articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe WP:COMPSCI should stand and WP:COMPUTING may be dissolved or its top-level content pushed into more specific "sub-projects". All of COMPSCI falls under COMPUTING, by definition, so whatever is COMPUTING and not COMPSCI (*cough* Information Systems? Information Technology? EE topics in telecommunications?) may be more appropriately pushed into categories like that, rather than usurped into a non-substantive umbrella group. I'm new to the conversation, though. I definitely agree that there should be a uniform assessment process (and maybe a mutual assessment request process) that unifies the two projects for articles that are tagged for both, as the discussion here mentions. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a category, "Bibliographic databases in computer science". Some of these were formerly in a "Computer science papers" category which I noticed was being reorganized. Current contents are

• ACM Portal
• CiteSeer
• Digital Bibliography & Library Project
• IEEE Xplore

Please add any other relevant databases. The category stuff (i.e. putting it in the right place in the hierarchy, improving descriptions) also needs to be done; I've asked for help with that, too. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Computer science articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A movenotice inviting discussion has been added to the article, suggesting to rename it "metavariable". Please see the discussion there and take part in the process if you are interested. Input from persons with thorough background in logic is most welcome. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 10:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

There's a dispute over article contents at Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization. I've already made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology, I'm not sure which is the correct protocol to also request for comment here at WP:Computer science? Diego Moya (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some disagreements over whether we should include a section of external links to all the relevant open source projects.:

• Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code

We could use some objective opinions from this WikiProject.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what algorithms are typically used in programming languages etc. to calculate logarithms? (We have Binary logarithm#Algorithm, but I'm not sure this is how it is actually done). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See Logarithm#Calculation—You can find other ways in the literature, e.g. Donald Knuth's 1997 The Art of Computer Programming 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 Fundamental Algorithms pp. 22–26. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

It's at AfD. Opinions would be welcome. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are some participants here familiar with the actor model, that article could use more eyes. It's one of the articles that was the subject of an arbitration case and which is still frequently visited by IP editors to add additional unpublished papers as references. As a mathematical recursion theorist, I'm not an expert in that particular area, and so it would be helpful to have some actual computer scientists more familiar with the area keep the page on their watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed a lot of heuristics from this template, because those removed are not discussed as important in optimization textbooks and journals (regardless of their merits in IEEE transactions on swarming fireflies, etc.). Second opinions would be desirable. Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the template should concentrate on the most important methods, but not that information should be dropped. The removed heuristics could be grouped by class by creating new categories for them (for example, all those found in the previous "Bio-inspired algorithms" section), and the category could be linked from the template. Diego Moya (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I proposed renaming two large groups of articles from Article (computer science) to Article (computing) and another group form Article (computer science) to Article (computer programming).

Please give your input here. Thanks! --Pnm (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Aid at Vladik Kreinovich would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A number of users affiliated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are removing external links to implementations of algorithms (this includes those implementations that are part of academically developed frameworks which have been described in academic literature). In my opinion this is setting a bad precedent and contrary to usual practice on articles related to this project. Could anyone interested in this issue, pro or contra, join the discussion at Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code. Cheers, —Ruud 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this good-faith IP edit due to unexplained deletions and spelling/grammar errors (which do not instill confidence). However, I recognize there might be some legitimate issues the editor was trying to address; I lack skill in the area of threads, so I was wondering if someone who did could look over the edit and try to properly incorporate any accurate, constructive changes. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead section, but there still several problems with the rest of article. —Ruud 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At the WP:RS Noticeboard, sources for this article were found to be unreliable, although I don't speak Italian, Czech or Chinese. fr:BOUML has a much better english bibliography, therefore we need some help in evaluating the following web references:

• Steven Kearney and James F. Power (6 June 2007). Université nationale d'Irlande (ed.). Benchmarking the accuracy of reverse engineering tools for Java programs: a study of eleven UML tools (Technical Report: NUIM-CS-TR-2007-01) (PDF).
• Behnaz Changizi, Natallia Kokash, Farhad Arbab (2010). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ed.). A Unified Toolset for Business Process Model Formalization (PDF). p. 6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

We are also looking for someone who can access and read the following sources on print:

• Esra Erdem, Fangzhen Lin, Torsten Schaub, Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning: 10th International Conference, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-04237-9, 2009, p.458-459
• Dorota Huizinga, Adam Kolawa , Automated defect prevention: best practices in software management, Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, ISBN 978-0-470-04212-0, 2007, p.398
• Fabrice Kordon, Yvon Kermarrec, Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe 2009: 14th Ada-Europe, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-01923-4, 2009, p.154

Please reply at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML. Thank you very much, Comte0 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also note that an AfD is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOUML. Comte0 (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed a peer review was requested for Reverse computation a couple months ago. Any takers? --Pnm (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys! While doing disambiguation 'patrol' I stumbled across two interesting articles: Temporal isolation and Temporal isolation among virtual machines. The former is an uncited stub, the latter seems to be a promising start on (what is to me) a niche topic. It looks like one or two users created the articles and left them in Wikispace. Since then they've seen minor improvements, but could benefit from expert attention.

My experience with CS is strictly applied, so while I understand what the articles are talking about I don't feel comfortable in editing them for content. In the spirit of SOFIXIT, I've made some attempts to to tag, wikify and categorize these two articles. Maybe someone more familiar with the MOS can take these articles under their wing (or at least review them). Mostly I just wanted to make this community aware of these two overlooked articles, I think they can be improved with time and some more inbound links. Thanks. DubiousIrony ^yell 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Fast inverse square root#Take out the F-bomb comment for a discussion of whether a vulgar expletive contained as a comment in a quoted piece of source code should be kept or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to edit the Operator-precedence grammar article. It seems to me that the "References" and "External links" sections should be at the bottom of the page, and the section that now follows them should be wikified (section headings and such). If the material is from external sources, those should be acknowledged. Also, something could be done about the introductory sentence.

I'm not sure how to go about editing the article, since it's in the scope of WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Computer science. I'm a computer scientist with a special interest in parsing. Should I just go ahead and start editing, or would you prefer to edit it yourselves? -- UKoch (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just go ahead. The projects mean nothing special as far as controlling editing - they are just central points for discussing general issues with the articles. I'll stick on a general help template on your talk page with the standard intro but it doesn't sound like you'll need to look at them much. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've started editing, but I think there are still several issues with this article, and I could use some help:

• Most of it was clearly copied from http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/nikolaev/cis324.htm , particularly from http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/nikolaev/3246-2.doc . Should that be acknowledged? Should one ask for Dr. Nikolaev's permission? Should the material be removed from Wikipedia?
• IMO the article should be renamed "Operator-precedence parsing" and perhaps be merged with Operator-precedence parser. Opinions? Who knows how to do that?
• Precedence functions: The example graph is missing. I'm not sure how to insert images into WP, and I don't think I'll find the time to draw such an image.

-- UKoch (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I declined a WP:PROD on this article but am sending it to AFD on request from the original PRODer. Some input from those familiar with computer science and mathmatics would be helpful. The discussion can be viewed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Career domains in computer science has come up in a deletion discussion that could use some input from this project. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following on the talk page at "algorithm". Please respond there.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please view the promotion of (meta)heuristics by editor Optimering over the last year, including his edit at the Template:Optimization algorithms, where he removed approximation algorithm and added ant colony optimization from the section on combinatorial optimization. He also removed the Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt articles from the gradient-related section; these are the most used methods in all of optimization, according to Lemaréchal, Gilbert, Bonnans, and Sagazstibal (sic) and science citation index counts.

"Optimering" has already had one "heads-up" at the COI noticeboard. He has been warned about OR and self promotion (at risk of blocking) at his self-titled discussion "Block_threat_to_expert_contributor" at the administrators' noticeboard. and has boasted about his own standing in the world of metaheurstics at AFD.

Category:POSIX web browsers is the subject of an ongoing discussion here. Input from this WikiProject's members would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer Science WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers

Please also consider what additions from binary and other numbering systems relevant to computer science, circuit media, and other engineering and computing topics should be made to this topic as a kept article.

Thank you. Pandelver (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Source Code is under discussion. It currently redirects to source code. The discussion is at Talk:Source Code (film) .

184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ch interpreter article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter. FYI.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is XML Control Protocol relevant for wikipedia or a hoax? If it is worth having it should be linked to from some articles. bamse (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a hoax, that's fine. What matters is if there are good sources about it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs)

Seems to fail WP:N. An article about a joke is fine, provided some very good indications of notability are available. In this case, my guess is that such indications are not available and the article should be proposed for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be merged into April Fool's Day RFC, but I doubt it's notable enough. 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have proposed that XML Control Protocol be deleted as there are no sources supporting notability. The only link to it is at XCP (disambiguation). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A new article on the Criss-cross algorithm for linear optimization has been nominated for Did You Know?:

• ... that, while the criss-cross algorithm visits all 8 corners of a cube when started at a worst corner, it visits only 3 more corners when started at a random corner?

Corrections and comments are especially welcome. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominated as original research. —Ruud 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Academic_papers_under_a_free_license. Please comment there. Dcoetzee 11:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved special case to special case (computer science), since that's what the article was originally about and that was still most of its content. Then I changed the new redirect page titled special case into an article about the traditional meaning of the term (think back to a couple of years ago when you were in high school before electronic computers were invented—say around the year 1925 or 1725 or so—and remember how the term "special case" was used in your geometry course). Then I looked at "what links here" for both articles. I find that all but possibly one of the surprisingly small number of articles that link to special case probably should link to that, and not to special case (computer science). I'm unsure of that one. But nothing currently links to special case (computer science), except a hatnote atop the other article. So I tagged it an "orphan".

Therefore you people (you know who you are) should get busy and find a few zillion articles that should link to special case (computer science) and put the links there. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should just be deleted. It's not standard CS terminology as far as I'm aware -- at least it will not, without clarification or qualification, be understood by computer scientists as meaning what the article claims (namely a pathologic input pattern that some algorithm under discussion is unprepared for handling gracefully). Of course, such things are also special cases, but it is not the idea the words "special case" by themselves evoke.

I have WP:PRODded it. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in this table of the “Hard disk drive” which includes a column comparing binary prefixes to describe capacities. We welcome your input--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote an article on x-fast tries, a data structure for storing integers from a bounded domain. I think the article is within the scope of this project and I'd appreciate any feedback. Mangarah (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently looked at some articles from Category:Programming constructs and noted that they often contain different titles in parentheses, sometimes "computer science", sometimes "computer programming" or the shorter version "programming". I was wondering if it might be possible to give those titles more consistency so that it's easier to locate them. Personally, I'd take "computer programming" because, as the category title already says, it's computer programming, and "programming" alone is too ambigious. However, I'm also open to other suggestions. Let me know what you think. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I like "computer programming" best for the kind of articles linked directly from Category:Programming constructs like Namespace or Operator, and maybe Scope. For articles under the subcategories, especially those under Category:Data types and Category:Control flow, I find that many of them are better placed under "computer science" - Closure, Fiber... but not Label, for example.

In summary, those with a theoretical definition or related to principles of code execution should get _(computer science). Those more practical or related to the practice of writing code should go to _(computer programming). Particular programs or libraries should go to _(computing). Diego Moya (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not a black and white area. Personally I'd tag all theoretical concepts, i.e. those studied in programming language theory and applying to large sets of languages, including scope and probably even operator, with "computer science" and concepts related to a specific language, articles like keyword, libraries, tools, etc. with "computer programming". That still leaves us with the question about what to do with software engineering topics. "Computer programming" as well, or a separate tag "software engineering"?

On a related note, I've been considering to merge WikiProject Programming languages with this one, and several other small, near death, project with WikiProject Computing. —Ruud 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps reorganize WikiProject Programming languages into a task force? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I support at least standardizing "(programming)" to "(computer programming)". Anything else probably needs case-by-case consideration, using roughly the principles Diego and Rudd outlined. I agree that consistency in this area is currently a clusterfsck. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont' think this is an actual thing, aside from being an arbitrary substring of one of Perl's backronyms. Can anyone confirm? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's 'a thing', however not a programming paradigm. See Data extraction. Morton Shumway—talk 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree. Not any more correct than "Eclectic Rubbish Lister" (another backronym for PERL). Extraction and reporting language is neither a programming paradigm nor a category of programming languages. Data extraction is a data operation, and so is the general ETL term. Fvillanustre (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROD-ed accordingly. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What about awk? Isn't that also an extraction and reporting language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhobley (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

awk can be considered a programming language (see the chapter on awk from the O'Reilly Unix in a nutshell book) and it shares certain characteristics with both, imperative (in the action section) and declarative (in the pattern matching section) computer languages. But I haven't been able to find any references to "Extraction and reporting languages" related to awk predating Perl appearance. It seems that the few mentions of awk as part of this class of "Extraction and reporting languages" is either a circular logic reference based on the Wikipedia entry or the application of the Perl backronym by some other source. I will stand corrected if you can identify a few good external references on this class of programming languages. Flavio Villanustre (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I considered it already clarified that not a language class. See, however, Google Scholar and Google. Basically I think that a remark under Data extraction might be just fine. Morton Shumway—talk 00:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

If such a category existed, I agree AWK could logically be filed under it. My point is that no such category appears to exist in the literature; it appears to have been newly invented, although with no bad intentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

C Sharp (programming language) has been requested to be renamed to C♯ (programming language) ; see Talk:C Sharp (programming language). 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure whether this algorithm is notable or not. I cannot find any sources independent of the originating this, but I do not have a strong understanding of computer science, so I am unsure of its overall relevance. Any help would be very useful. --Anthem of joy (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be original research at this point; the only sources cited relate to context, not to "Hung's adjustment" per se. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind; article's creator has added a new reference. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication of peer-review of the publication on any conference or journal; the article claims 2011, the linked file (which is on a rapidshare-like hoster!) has an upload date of 2010. The article itself doesn't look polished to me or up to scientific standards (e.g. is using "I" instead of "we", despite having four 'authors'). There are no references beyond wikipedia of the term "Hung's adjustment", in particular not on scholar or similar scientific search engines. In other words, there is not even a slight indication of notability. In fact, not even an indication that it might be related to a professor Hung at all [1], or that there even is a professor Hung Pui Ki at HKU [2]. --93.104.74.33 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

System bus model has been nominated for deletion, however on the talk page, there is a suggestion that it be merged instead of going to AfD. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the tag for this project. Its initial placement was included in a "guess at projects". Please note that other relevant project tags remain, and that it was unassessed here. If my edit is deemed incorrect, please accept my apologies and undo the edit or ask me to do so. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I regularly exchange WikiProject Computer science with WikiProject Computing tags and vice versa. More unfortunately is the fact that most of the articles in these areas remain completely untagged. Perhaps we should try and fix that one day. —Ruud 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein removed a (new) reference from cellular automata, questioning its notability. The other editor then questioned the notability of the David Eppstein article and has made a lot of comments about Eppstein, as editor and real-world person.

I have written some articles with David, so others should monitor this situation.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a week. That should hopefully be long enough to work things out without resorting to retaliatory tag bombing. —Ruud 22:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: The IP editor filed a notice about David Eppstein at the COI noticeboard. (For better or for worse, now he seems more angry at this rodeo clown.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The filled COI has nothing to do with this discussion, it has to do with the fact that David Eppstein has mostly designed and written his own Wikipedia article as an autobiography. Nothing else. Kieffer wants to mix things up in his own rodeo clown. Wasn't you who recommended me to fill the COI in Eppstein's talk page? Anyway, you only spread the word on the unethical behavior of Eppstein by coming everywhere to make your little show. I even agreed with the suggestion of a secondary source to confirm whether it was worth mentioning my contribution in the CA article, no need to semi protect the article, if I had wanted I would just go ahead an started an editing war, something that didn't happen. Yet you come to claim here and elsewhere that this has something to do with the acknowledged fact (by Eppstein himself) that he has written his long and cared Wikipedia article to push his notability inside and outside Wikipedia. You are not being very successful defending him... 90.46.37.131 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have declared here I have written WP articles with David. Given this history, it has been good that others check whether I treat you fairly. It is good also that mathematicians and computer scientists pay attention to your claims of fact.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy if computer scientists and mathematicians look after my couple of lines long contribution to the cellular automata article that didn't hurt anyone and which was reverse by Eppstein a few minutes later on the claim that the paper wasn't notable enough. I didn't agree and reversed his reversal, then you came and explained you wanted a second opinion. Given how close you act to each other you act in complicity, yet I agreed that we could just wait for a second source to confirm what I think is a relevant result concerned with the section I was editing, which I still think is the case. I don't see why you would bother 'mathematicians' and 'computer scientists' on this, or why would you bother than much to semi protect a page and ask blocking another as if I were acting hectic. The only weird behavior and strange relationship around is yours with Eppstein. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The usage of neural network is under discussion. See the requested move at talk:biological neural network and the discussion at talk:neural network. As neural nets are a big topic in AI, I thought you'd like to know. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was consolidated at Talk:Neural network, with a proposal to merge biological neural network into it. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I found this project listed at Talk:Constraint satisfaction problem. Can some expert look at Natural Constraint Language, Mixed Set Programming and POEM (software)? They are all about the same language/approach/product. In particular, it is claimed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language that citations for early papers by Zhou on the job-shop problem should count for the notability of his later language, although that seems quite a stretch to me. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would consider asking the same question on the Mathematics project, but Constraint satisfaction is listed as lower priority for them, so they probably care less. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Those were deleted as you can now see from the red links. The following discussion on the merging of two categories on constraint programming/satisfaction may also interest someone here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 15#Category:Constraint programming. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that Sleep sort has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep sort. I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be kept, but perhaps you do. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogosort and a WP:PROD on Lucky sort and Stooge sort. —Ruud 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the PROD on lucky sort has been removed already, so I nominated it for AfD. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Further discussion. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the notability guidelines for specialized books, such as programming or math is going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Criterion out of context. Some editors maintain that book that have not been covered in-depth in venues for a general audience, such as the New York Times, should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, recent AfD discussion on math and programming books ended up with such books being kept if they pass the less restrictive WP:GNG, for example Learning Perl or Perl Cookbook. Please voice your opinion in that guideline discussion. There is a balancing concern that probably most books by O'Reilly publishes for instance would qualify under GNG, making Wikipedia catalog of such books. However, closing administrators in those discussions chose to ignore WP:NOTCATALOG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Blue Whale Clustered file system. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low poly. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute in the article Sieve of Eratosthenes concerning what constitutes "pseudocode", specifically whether "higher-order function" (such as those found in Haskell) are acceptable. I first raised this question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#What_is_pseudocode.3F; for simplicity, let's have the discussion there. If others could weigh-in to help settle this matter, it would be appreciated. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the piece in dispute is a pseudocode under "unbounded sieve", a re-write of a Haskell one-liner which I claim was NOT in violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and could be left in as is. Would appreciate any comments on that question as well. WillNess (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the one-liner is particularly understandable. So, regardless of whether we're accumulating too many redundant implementations in that article (the problem the restriction to pseudocode is intended to avoid) I think it violates WP:TECHNICAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not too sure if this is the right project, but someone may want to take a look at PackML. It was written by the organization behind the 'product'. I have no idea what this talks about, but it's pretty clear it needs cleanup, a proper layout, a proper lead, etc. It seems to contain original research too, but I'm not sure. If anyone wants to take a look, and maybe initiate conversation with the user who created it (see bottom message), it would be appreciated. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Please look at mathematical optimization. A (reverted) rewrite dropped the distinction between algorithm and iterative method (which had followed Knuth/Markov).

The talk page has had a lot of discussion in the last days.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war going on in linked list concerning what should be in its lede. Broader participation from interested project members would probably be a good thing. See article history and talk page for more details. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please make your comments here: Talk:Sieve_of_Eratosthenes#Symbolic_formulas:_a_recap.

Only two editors had so far participated in the discussion. Need more opinions to put the matter at rest.

Your help will be greatly appreciated. WillNess (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is closed. Thanks to all for your participation. WillNess (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone with more computer experience assist me in solving the problems mentioned on C++'s GAN page? Thanks! --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Metadefinition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH building on a computer science concept better discussed at Metamodeling.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 202.124.73.181 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Shapley–Folkman_lemma is nominated for Featured Article status, and the usual Featured-Article reviewers are not mathematical scientists. Therefore, your comments would be especially valuable, particularly for deciding whether the article meets the FA criteria. Your criticism/suggestions/bold improvements would all be welcome.

Optimization/OR people are especially needed! :)

Please help with the short section on optimization, which is written in summary style.

Thanks for your help, in my hour of need ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing has been nominated for deletion, with the implicit argument that such a list is original research; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing.  --Lambiam 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in networks and security has been nominated for deletion, with the implicit argument that such a list is original research; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security.  --Lambiam 21:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in theoretical computer science has been nominated for deletion, with the implicit argument that such a list is original research; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science.  --Lambiam 21:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes WikiProject Computer science different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing? Would merging those two be beneficial? (Increased editor activity due to fewer forums to check) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Computer science deals with topics such as NP (complexity class) and Denotational semantics, while computing deals with Word processor and Internet Explorer. There is some overlap between topics and participants, but I think completely merging wouldn't be a good idea. A good number of people interested in computing don't know much about computer science and a good number of computer scientists isn't very interesting in computing in general. The main problem is that there currently exists much more than two projects related to computing: see the topic #WikiProject restructuring above. It think these should all be merged into these two projects. While it is probably a good idea to have a separate project on Computer and video games (by these same reasoning I gave why there should be separate projects on Computing and Computer science) I don't really get the need for separate projects on Computer networking or Software. —Ruud 08:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been contacted by a student on the India Education Program for some feedback on her draft (User:Netra Nahar/Gray Box Testing). It originally had serious copyvio problems. I can confirm that these are now addressed, but this not my area at all, and I find it quite confusingly written. Perhaps someone here could advise her on whether the content is suitable. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Project	Watchers	Page views (main / talk, 2010)	Revisions / Contributors (talk)	GA/FA	Articles (stubs)	Assessments
WikiProject C++	59	3680 / 464	few	None	0	{{WikiProject C++}}
WikiProject Computational Biology	32	did not exist yet	87 / 20	1 / 1
WikiProject Computing	223	23488 / 8738	1429 / 480	62/17	66,098	{{WikiProject Computing}}
WikiProject Computer graphics	0	did not exist yet	2 / 1	None	1,244	{{WikiProject Computer graphics}}
WikiProject Computer music	0	334 / 74	24 / 12	None	?	No
WikiProject Computer networking (now a task force of WikiProject Computing)	54	6593 / 569	164 / 68	2/0	3,663	{{WikiProject Computer networking}}
WikiProject Computer science	390	23739 / 2848	1369 / 288	9/1	10,189 (0)	{{WikiProject Computer science}}
WikiProject Computer Security	33	3693 / 1230	173 / 53	7/2	0 (145+81+132-3)	{{WikiProject Computer Security}}
WikiProject Computer Vision	0	did not exist yet	1 / 1	None	130	{{WikiProject Computer Vision}}
WikiProject Cryptography	102	8957 / 903	402 / 83	None	1,875	{{WikiProject Cryptography}}
WikiProject Databases	37	1885 / 456	53 / 24	2 / 1	0	{{WikiProject Databases}}
WikiProject Free Software	44	4425 / 1024	353 / 97	7 / 1	0 (0)	{{WikiProject Free Software}}
WikiProject Internet	34	4636 / 2614	84 / 50	16/3	? (336)	{{WikiProject Internet}}
WikiProject Java	31	5588 / 819	75 / 26	1/0	1,335	{{WikiProject Java}}
WikiProject Programming languages (merged with WikiProject Computer science)	80 (before merge)	2507 / 357	130 / 56	None	?	No
WikiProject Software	82	6773 / 1443	540 / 143	13/5	26,018	{{WikiProject Software}}
WikiProject Systems	45	4377 / 691	626 / 70		4,784	{{WikiProject Systems}}
Not (yet) included: WikiProject Cyberlaw (check redirect!), WikiProject IRC, WikiProject KDE, WikiProject Linux, WikiProject Nortel, WikiProject Apple Inc., WikiProject Malware, WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Microsoft Windows, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject .NET, WikiProject Method engineering, WikiProject RISC OS, WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative
WikiProject Logic
WikiProject Mathematics (for comparison)	661	19534 / 27375	22711 / 1185	33/23	31444	{{maths rating}}
To compare: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Military history

Compared to some other WikiProjects, the WikiProjects related to computing in a broad sense have been split into a large number of small projects:

I believe this fragmentation of the community is not productive. In essence a WikiProject is just a shared talk page where people with similar interests can meet each other. Would anyone objects to merging all the smaller projects into the two largest projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science)? —Ruud 10:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps restructure them as task-forces? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not really sure what the definition of a "task force" is. I would support retaining any article assessment infrastructure already in place by the separate projects, but I think it is very import to only have a single talk page (potentially new) community members end up when clicking on the WikiProject banners the articles are tagged with. —Ruud 12:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"I believe this fragmentation of the community is not productive.". Very true. Projects should be split only when they are too active, which is almost never the case. Fragmentation of projects is why we have so many inactive one. I am not a member of this project, but I am a member of several others, and my experience has always been "merge and consolidate" when possible. PS. I'd also add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture to your list (it should be merged into the Internet, with pages also tagged by WP:SOCIOLOGY and/or WP:CULTURE projects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - activity should be the main criterion for splitting or creation of subprojects. To put it another way, you should be thinking to yourself "I can't keep up with all these posts, and not all of them are relevant to me". Dcoetzee 12:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, all. I'm working with a professor at my university who wants to get a Wikiproject Computer Vision going. Probably the closest relative would be WikiProject CS (though I've seen some CV articles that were under the umbrella of WP Robotics, too). What would people think about a *separate* WikiProject for CV. I think it's distinct enough to warrant a separate one. I haven't created a WP in many many years so I was hoping to get some feedback. – Ilyanep (Talk) 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

See the #Restructuring thread above. It is very likely to become an inactive project over time (or even quickly) and a WikiProjects without a good number of participants isn't of much use. I'd suggest creating a separate article assessment infrastructure at most (i.e. update {{WikiProject Computer science}} to include a cv=yes or computervision=yes parameter.) —Ruud 17:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think we'll look into ways to combine into this WikiProject. I see there are little subcategories on the main page of this WikiProject (like networking, concurrency, etc.) and we could probably create one of those and stick some WP:CS templates (with perhaps the separate parameter) on Vision-related articles. Are there any important things we should keep in mind when doing this to make sure we don't mess anything important up? – Ilyanep (Talk) 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not anything that I can think of right now. You should probably have a look at {{WikiProject Computing}} to see how the subprojects/taskforces are implemented (technically), as I don't believe there currently are any for {{WikiProject Computer science}}. —Ruud 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

After discussing with the professor, we decided that due to how many fields CV touches, it may be a good idea to start a separate project that is perhaps highly correlated with the CS one. This project can, of course, always be turned into a Task Force if that's deemed necessary after a while. – Ilyanep (Talk) 21:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that is a good reason to start yet another project. In general, university programs for Wikipedia have been a disaster, with unexperienced editors creating many single poor quality articles that do not comply with guidelines, which we then have to spend our time deleting. The editors stop editing when the course ends, so it is all just "make work". Creating a project that just goes defunct when the course ends also seems a dubious use of time. WikiProjects are not meant to be ephemeral like school classes. As you see in the current discussions, too many projects were created by one or a few editors who then lose interest when they graduate or get married and other editors have to clean it up. The real question is if you have a critical mass of experienced editors who will sustain the project. I would say start by getting at least one article to featured level and say, half a dozen to "good article" level. Once you have demonstrated that level of sustainable interest, then spinning off to a separate project would make sense. Just my opinion, albeit perhaps a curmudgeonly one. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many university classes have been very successful in editing Wikipedia (see e.g. Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Intellectual Property law (Brian Carver) for an excellent example). However, the Global Education Program has never advocated creating Wikiprojects for use by a single course. Collaboration with larger existing projects is the usual way to go. If we really do get a critical mass of long-term committed users in the CV space (or any other space), that would be a good time to create a subproject. Dcoetzee 12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, looks like it was already created. So much for consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Would an experienced Wikipedian please offer feedback/guidance regarding adding refs to PPP. I started a discussion here. Thanks. -- fg^TC 23:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Several responses have been posted already so at this time there is no need to join in (not to say you shouldn't). If the responders came via here; Thanks! If not; Thanks! -- fg^TC 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

simplest algorithm or technique applied to read a hard disk.......preinstalled in a computer system......any one who wud answer dis one????... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baneet sethi (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Best asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk - however it is a rather too vague. If you mean "IBM compatible PC" then the bios I believe reads the boot sector. Whether this constitutes the simplest algorithm or technique, depends on what you mean. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

I thought he was asking about read-head technology! Very much too vague. htom (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody have comments to have prototypes to function in an article like C string handling, please comment at the talk page talk:C string handling. Christian75 (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we refer to "one's complement" which a majority of sources say or "ones' complement" which Knuth who is a recognized expert says is right but is used in few sources (the other common form is "ones complement")? Dmcq (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See Ones' complement#Linguistic note.

The point of discussion here is that while "ones' complement" is correct, both grammatically and technically, the incorrect form "one's complement" is widespread through the literature to the extent that its use outweighs the correct form. I have (perhaps unwisely, but AGF) gone through and changed all the occurrences of "one's complement" with "ones' complement" on the grounds that "correct" should have precedence over "popular". However, there is a counter-argument which suggests that "what's in the literature" (whether technically "correct" or not) is allowed to supersede what is "technically correct", on the grounds, presumably, of reflecting what is current in the evolution of language.

While I appreciate that language changes, the approach I was advised (many years ago, at school!) to take in such situations is that it is recommended that reference material should as a general rule "lag behind" popular usage.

What should be done?

This discussion has also been raised on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page. --Matt Westwood 09:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to centralize discussion here. Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One's complement is completely correct. Knuth was just being silly. The arithmetic uses one's complement. I actually checked the assertion that ones' complement is referred to in the C++ standard by searching through the latest version. It says one's complement. It does not say ones' complement. Anyway whatever about correctness this is Wikipedia and the mantra is still verifiability not truth. The C99 standard says ones' complement like the article says but its rationale says one's complement! Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed speedy tags from a number of redirects from alternate and erroneous forms of this expression. Whatever is the result of this discussion, these redirects should probably remain, or else get changed so they point to whatever turns out to be the preferred form. Redirects are supposed to be from both alternative and from erroneous forms. They serve the purpose of letting people get to the information they are looking for. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "Knuth was just being silly" does him a bit of a disservice. Fact is, "one's complement" means "complement of one" not "complement of ones", which is what is meant. If an attempt at being grammatically accurate equates to "being silly" then, oh good grief don't get me started. --Matt Westwood 10:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

He tried being grammatically accurate but needn't have done so. It is arithmetic where one is complemented. It is one's complement arithmetic. It may also be viewed as an arithmetic where all the ones are complemented, in that case it is ones' complement arithmetic. Either is correct. He chose one way unnecessarily and against common usage. And it makes a mess in 1s' as well. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I started a couple of reverts (please, never change comments to "fix" grammar, particularly comments made in 2004). The linguistic argument is not relevant as Wikipedia follows common usage; changing such common usage is not our role (interminable arguments about kibibytes comes to mind). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wot-EVV-er ... --Matt Westwood 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep there's a guideline about it WP:TPO. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion To avoid problems with WP:JARGON how about "Ones compliment"? It sounds exactly the same in ones head as one says it and could be simply explained better at a central location (its own page?). That would leave all uses of the term free of confusing punctuation and arguable correctness'. fg^t_c 01:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not free of misspellings, though (sorry, cheap shot, but if we're going to be arguing about apostrophe placement...) Anyway, my own feeling is that we should stick to "one's complement" as it has more than twice as many hits as "ones complement" in Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sory yez ov corse, ei shood'av sed "Wuns kompliment". Cillie mee. fg^t_c 02:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See information below where the history seems to actually support this choice without an apostrophe at all and forget about the two forms the original question was about! Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Datapoint Google Scholar: Singular possessive (~3,580) vs. Plural (~1,720) --Cybercobra (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth having a look at those hits as they don't refer to the exact forms, Google tends to common up when it decides things are close enough. The disparity is actually quite a bit bigger. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: Do we have any reliable sources claiming that "one's complement" is correct, or do we just have many sources that just happen to use it? (Maybe because they didn't know better, because they copied it from somewhere, because it looked consistent with two's complement. We shouldn't judge by Google hits, but by reliable sources that say which is the correct spelling. Wikipedia is not just about counting what is used in literature. Ones' complement seems to be the correct way of spelling it (says Knuth?), and we should stick to the correct spelling. We should of course discuss the alternative versions, as it is currently done in the article. Just because "Whassup?" is maybe more popular in TV commercials than "What's up" doesn't mean we have to use it everywhere either. "One's complement" is probably just another popular spelling mistake. That just means we should mention it and have a redirect. --Chire (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME doesn't quite agree with you: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. [...] The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" --Cybercobra (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about spelling level differences, not about "Bill Clinton" vs. "William Jefferson Clinton". It's perfeclty recongizable (which is the motivation to not use the official name sometimes, but prefer e.g. artists names), so this reasoning does not apply. --Chire (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the three alternatives is an official name. It's a question of a name that an expert says is correct compared to what's generally used. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While probably all three are somewhat commonly used, it's not just Knuth using the "ones'" variation. --Chire (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a look through the returns from Google for the different searches. The Knuth form is definitely infrequent. The ones form without any apostrophe is the common alternative. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was that "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" contradicts your "by reliable sources that say which is the correct spelling". That is, we look at the preponderance of usage in reliable sources, rather than just reliable sources that explicitly address the spelling issue. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Information I did a search as best I could with Google for books before 1950. Ones and twos complements aren't mentioned much but the nines and tens complements are. And in fact then the most common form by far was "nines complement" or "nines-complement" I found a single case of "nines' complements" (notice the plural complement) and no other nines' and one of "nine's complement". There were a number of cases of nines complements. If we were going by the original forms we'd go for the second most common form now i.e. "ones complement" without any apostrophe at all. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I would consider this situation as an absence of the language norm: if there is no clear consensus between the people who use the term professionally (and by that mean decide the language norm), there should be no enforcement for any of the options. I would keep all three variants in editors' discretion and advise to leave the already existing wordings as is. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We need a decision because an editor has gone around changing all occurrences of one's complement to ones' complement en masse. Another editor was going to go around and change them all back again. Should they be reverted? As the original editor said "Otherwise we'll be in a pointless edit war." Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I would stick to the dominant use among references on the main articles title. In this case it's Knuth's position. You may also consider calling linguist expert with {{Expert-subject|Linguistics|proper wording}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For 'dominant' read 'the single reference' in the article. If it was a dominant use we would need this discussion. Anyway I take your sense as correct use as defined by an expert even when rare trumps common usage. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where "common use" is now what, "ones complement" or "one's complement"? As far as I can tell, there is already more than one somewhat common way of writing it? Lets's use 0 for "ones", 1 for "one's" 2 for "ones'", then a quick google books gives me 1001210101 101120210_. The last one was a false hit, that is 9/19 using "one's", 7/19 using "ones", and 3/19 using "ones'". So to me, none is here the true winner, and we could as well go with the version that at least has prominent support (and reasoning, not just use), and even more if we get a linguist to confirm that reasoning. --Chire (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest again calling for professional linguists' help, as this is a question of language, not math.

Another possible direction — to count (as Chire did) the claimed right variant in discussions about what variant is the right one if such occurred. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Both one's and ones' are okay as far as I can see from a grammatical point of view, it just depends on what you think you are referring to, on grounds like that an argument could be made for "one complements" instead of "ones complement"!. Also on the googling the search needs to be for "one's complement" etc with the complement in rather than just "ones'" and actually check the responses as Google often treats punctuation as space even in quote marks. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If ones' complement is correct, it's the one we should be using. Otherwise Wikipedia will perpetuate the incorrect term. It's also worth checking the Wiktionary entries (ones' complement, two's complement). On a related note, the lead states swapping 0's for 1's and vice-versa - shouldn't this be swapping 0s for 1s and vice-versa? -- Trevj (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary is something set up by Wikipedia, we'd be referring to a place where it might be exactly the same person putting in this stuff. Try out '"ones' complement" dictionary' in google and you'll see that other dictionaries don't bother with that form. As far as I can see "ones" with no apostrophe is the common for dictionaries beating "one's" and Wiktionary is the only place that mentions "ones'". Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about pedantic correctness, it's about prevalence. See WP:COMMONNAME. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The wiktionary entries were both created on 19 January 2005 by wikt:User:Dmh, who doesn't have a SUL account, but is here as Dmh and hasn't contributed to Ones' complement on Wikipedia. As for WP:COMMONNAME, it states [...] ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But then again: The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but my interpretation is that that refers to alternative (full) names such as

Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)

Venus de Milo (not Aphrodite of Melos)

Caffeine (not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)

Nazi Party (not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

rather than grammatical misunderstandings. -- Trevj (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• All three forms are used by at least several reputable authors, and in the descriptivist theory of language usage is all that is relevant (so we need not settle this by getting out our grammar rulebooks). In my opinion the article should list all three variants, but be named after the most common form occurring in the literature (one's complement). However, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to name the article after either of the other variants. Dcoetzee 12:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• In today's world of spelling correction, common use may be being created automagicly without authors or editors even noticing. My fingers will probably always type "ones'", but then I learned to program on a series of CDC machines that used ones' complement (CDC 3600.) When I've been questioned about that spelling, I've always cited Knuth, but he's an old main-frame guy in the eyes of the modern hip crowd, who may be using other spellings just to show they're new. This could become one of the great battles of Wikipedia, I suppose, three sides with each being correct in their eyes. htom (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You might even write the likely-correct "ones' complement", but the lector will think you got it wrong and actually changes it to "one's complement"... --77.4.74.161 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ones complement This is a matter of style not sourcing. I presume "one's" is derivative from "1's" - the apostrophe here is to separate the number from the "s" plural, and is commonly seen "...in the 1990's he went..." However house style is not to use such an apostrophe "1990s" and presumably "1s". Hence we should write "ones complement" "twos complement" "threes complement" etc.. No possessive is involved, it is not the complement of the nines. "Nines" is an adjective, you could write "three's complement in the nines complement system is six." Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
  

  I don't think that style [is] the issue. (And 1990's is incorrect for the plural anyway: it's either 1990s or '90s.) Ones' is the posessive of the plural Ones, like hives' inhabitants (the inhabitants of the hives). FWIW I think this discussion should be moved to Talk:Ones' complement#Discussion on apostrophe position in "one's complement", for reference by future editors. -- Trevj (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  That's exactly my point. 1990's is incorrect in the vast majority of uses, according to our style guide. (I politely allow that the people who use the apostrophe may be doing so legitimately according to another style, but that is almost irrelevant. The important point is that it is a common usage that we don't use.) I understand what "one's" and "ones'" should mean, and they don't make sense in the places we would use them, whereas "ones" does. I came via the RFC - I'm happy for tyou to move the discussion there if you want. Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC).
  

• Ones complement per Rich Farmbrough. Gerardw (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen several class projects / assignments in other projects. Is there a way to get some type of algorithms for getting some free work out of students (as part of their class assignment) to clean up and add refs to some articles that are simple enough and need help, e.g. context switch, Preemption (computing), etc. Given the totally unkempt state of these articles (well over 100 articles I guess) and the current resources available, that may be the only way they will ever get cleaned up. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In the current Global Education Projects the lists of topics seem to have been selected by the students or lecturers. Given the fiasco with the India Education Program this may change in the future. It might be a good idea to create a few lists of articles - corresponding to common computer science courses - with suitable articles. If another CS related school or university project comes along, we can just point to the list. —Ruud 18:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the India fiasco story, but I was thinking of an ACM type route where some structure is brought into it. As is, these articles will sit there unkempt almost for ever.

I wonder if one could set up some type of "virtual prize" (money free) award for the 3 students who make the best improvements to a Wikipedia article. That way they could put it on their resume and that would be an incentive. As is I do not see any other way these hundreds of articles will ever get cleaned up. And they are not hard to clean up, but there are just to many of them and too few editors. History2007 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at Expert system? See Talk:Expert system#Changes by User Pat Grenier for details. —Ruud 12:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is in sad shape. The history was bad but the article is incorrect and incomplete in many aspects any way. But not on my path now. But this whole ProjComputing project is pretty low quality in many cases: hardware and software. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There are currently a number of AfDs of articles created by User:Comps/Yoav Raz:

• Yoav Raz (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Raz)
• Commitment ordering (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commitment ordering)
• History of commitment ordering (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of commitment ordering)
• Reshaped relational algebra (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reshaped relational algebra)
• ERROL (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERROL)

The following articles still need to be reviewed:

• (Locks with ordered sharing)
• Moshe Yanai
• Victor M. Markowitz

There may be some neutrality issues with (overemphasis on commitment ordering and strong strict two-phase locking):

• Concurrency control (especially Concurrency control#Distributed serializability and Commitment ordering)
• Deadlock#Distributed deadlock
• Distributed concurrency control
• Distributed transaction
• Global concurrency control
• Global serializability (especially Global serializability#The commitment ordering solution)
• Index locking
• Schedule (computer science) (especially Schedule (computer science)#Commitment-ordered)
• Serializability (especially from Serializability#Distributed serializability and Commitment ordering onwards)
• Snapshot isolation (especially Snapshot isolation#Making Snapshot Isolation Serializable)
• Software transactional memory (especially Software transactional memory#Transactional locking)
• Two-phase commit protocol
• Two-phase locking (especially Two-phase locking#Strong strict two-phase locking)

—Ruud 14:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are these two the same person? Anyway, at first glance, putting it bluntly looks like self promotion arising from illusions of grandeur and the use of Wikipedia as Craigslist. I would block the user to save everyone time. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up Snapshot isolation. Some of the added content was valuable, most felt irrelevant to the article regardless of whether it was self-promotion. If anyone else agrees it's okay now, please go ahead and remove the NPOV marker. --Chris Purcell (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks Ok, but the normal form violation needs a better ref. I do not even remember that topic that well any more (it was long ago and far away) but it was not clear at first reading which normal form is violated etc. And if it is a dimensional DB that problem may not even come up, etc. But I have not thought through those issues for a while. By the way the history section below it is also unref and I barely recall Interbase, given that it was so short lived, but would be surprised if it had SI. Did it for sure? History2007 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a question of reliability of academic conferences over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, in which computer science sources are particularly mentioned. Any comments welcome. Failedwizard (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I know there is already a WikiProject Internet, but I'd like to argue that the Internet is simply the platform that the Web was built on. Whereas WikiProject Internet focuses on protocols and such, WikiProject Web would deal more in the area of HTML and CSS, various W3 APIs, and the like. The Internet and the Web are very different things. 75.138.226.104 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to prevent fragmentation of the computing-related WikiProjects (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#WikiProject restructuring), so starting yet another project (or splitting an existing one) probably wouldn't be a very good. —Ruud 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A community input is required due to recent conflict on the page "Index (computer science)". Thanks in advance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I advise to reverse the decision of 2008 and consider splitting this back – for 3 years computer language redirects to "programming language" which is a semantically incorrect redirect from a general notion to a partial, narrow case. This seems to be yet a severe mistake of early en.WP editors who used such invalid arguments as a poor current state of an article to merge it. Note that separate articles about "computer languages" (not necessary programming) exist in more than a dozen of languages – fr:Langage informatique and interwikis. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a decision made in 2008 to be one made by "early" Wikipedians... I think the desire to have an article instead of a redirect at that place is a reasonable one. Looking at the last version before it was turned into a redirect shows that restoring that version wouldn't be a good idea, however. Having a discussion without an actual replacement doesn't seem useful either, so I suggest that the best course of action would be to develop a well-written and well-referenced sandbox version of the article first. —Ruud 04:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of articles of interest to this WikiProject use the {{harv}} method for referencing. That template is up for deletion: see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:Harvard citation. Please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• A cool and cutting edge topic for collaboration: merge Simulation for Therapy into Virtual reality therapy; bring the latter up to FA quality. Cheers. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

i am a looking for a research topic related to virtual private network and biometrics for my Phd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.187.187 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the point of this discussion page. It is for discussing ways to improve the encyclopedia and its coverage of computer science topics, not a general discussion board for anything vaguely related to CS. If you're looking for a research topic for your Ph.D., your advisor would be a better choice for who to ask. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Would you consider Design patterns a CS topic, or too applied? Reason for asking: I think several of the pattern pages could get a lot better, not least in the explanatory/motivational part. Also, they do not follow any convention/structure, which would improve readability too. --Objarni (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we merged WikiProject Programming languages here, I'd say they would be in scope. —Ruud 11:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'm watching this page already. I guess contacting users that have been involved in the pattern articles so far is a way of building a "work group"? Or you have a suggestion if I want to gather attention on this subject? --Objarni (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole series of new articles awaiting review, with computer science talk page templates. See Category:All unreviewed new articles. For example, Kinetic triangulation.

I would appreciate reviews by an editor who knows this subject and can provide talk page templates with class and importance. The {{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=May 2012}} tags should be removed, and of course any tags for problems should be added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science#Merge?. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The banner of this wikiproject Work on Template:WikiProject Computer science (which can also be seen on the top of this page has a small error with it to do list. The 3rd option reads like this :

Work on [[Wikipedia:Missing science topics/NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures

Is that actually intended or an error? Vanischenu m^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have mentioned some articles of interest to this project at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bbb23#Oppose. Warden (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's C++ Programming. Azinheira (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Members of the Computer Science WikiProject are cordially invited to chime-in in the on-going discussion of the pro and con of placing Mizar system external deep links on mathematical articles. Yaniv256 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of these proposed deletions of articles may be within the scope of this WikiProject. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local maximum intensity projection,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streamsurface,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin friction lines,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymptotic Decider,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex Core Line,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streamlet (Scientific Visualization),
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tensor glyph,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worley noise,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image-based flow visualization.
Michael Hardy (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a RfC on the merger of the two articles. Apparently this is a contentious issue going back some years and the articles have seesawed. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just noted that the link to logics on the project page was literally to "Logic" in article namespace. I took the liberty an changed that to Wikiproject: Logic. I suggest the projects could hook up and coordinate some of the effort, just like the folks from mathematics and philosophy on the Logics project?

Secondly, I would like to request for comments on a statement in Effective method, see the paragraph on the talk page. Just some sort of a confirmative comment would be eough. Se'taan (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

About three years ago I created a small series Wikipedia articles on IDEF modelling languages from IDEF0, IDEF1X, IDEF3, IDEF4, IDEF5 to IDEF6. Two days ago without any discussion a new user changed all names, claiming Original name is just an acronym. However, in my opinion these original names are the real names; both in the original documents and in third party sources. Now I have requested to restore the original names, and would like to ask for your expert opinion on this matter at Talk:Integration_DEFinition#Requested_move. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Computer networking has been nominated for deletion. But it seems to be leaning towards merger with Portal:Computer science (this is a different portal from Portal:Computing) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WT:PHYSICS, where a discussion on creating an article on "transformation" is occurring. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, and anom (see here) claimed an unknown framework is one of the three popular frameworks. I have try to removed this, but this has been undone. Could anybody assist here? -- Mdd (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

After an article for creation about that framework has been declined, see here, the anon has put the text back here, see here. I think this is just unacceptable spam, which should be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I started adding wikilinks to the page of Level ancestor problem, however, I need help to finish it off. I feel as though a wikilink needs to be added to the word 'ladder' on the page, however I cannot seem to find the right page for it. There are other words I'm also unsure about that may or may not need wikilinks. Thanks. Djae3 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I only looked at it very quickly, but "ladder" seems to be used as a one-off definition for the specific algorithm described there. As such, there probably isn't, and won't ever be, an appropriate target to link to. —Ruud 23:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The ladder algorithm seems to be a term created in this paper on the level ancestor problem, but I don't see it in general use. --Mark viking (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

'Redirects with possibilities: Computers' Does not seem to go anywhere related to Computer redirects. I really need to know where I can find a related discussion about it. Swestlake (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A proposal for a WikiProject Apps has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Apps. As WikiProject Computer science is a related WikiProject, members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion. Thank you. XapApp (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that Zonnon had been deleted and I want to check for the notability of the language. I found some sources and listed them at User:WhisperToMe/Zonnon. Is that enough? Or do I need more? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing of this language, but note that the English refs you listed are by Gutnecht and/or Zueff. Having all the references from just one research group sometimes leads to deletion, because if there are no sources independent of the creators of the language, the notability requirement for multiple independent reliable sources is not met. I don't read Russian and cannot tell about the possible independence of those sources. In looking for sources, I noted Active Oberon and 'Zonnon' being mentioned together. Are they related languages? --Mark viking (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The home page on Zonnon says "Zonnon is a general-purpose programming language in the Pascal, Modula-2 and Oberon family." so I'm assuming they are related- And a Russian Wikipedia user gave translations on the Russian sources. The authors of the Russian works do not appear on the project's about page. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. If the Russian sources are independent and you consider them reliable sources, the article may pass the notability threshold this time around. --Mark viking (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool! I'll ask the Russian editor if they are RSes. I'm sure they will be RSes but I'll find out. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources certainly exist, but this does not prove WP:Notability. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are sufficient independent reliable sources it can pass the WP:GNG guidelines. Are there specific guidelines on the notability of programming languages? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedian confirmed that the two sources are reliable. I'll mine the Russian Wikipedia entry for any further reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I talked to the closing admin of the old AFD and we said there is no special criteria for programming languages, so GNG is relevant here. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

really good post, i undoubtedly adore this site, keep on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.42.177 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled on this October 2011 article today. It was one of the student creations from the India Education Program (for those of you who helped in the clean up, enough said) Could someone here take a look at this and see if it's worth keeping, should be re-directed, nuked etc. This isn't my area at all. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is worth keeping. Dekart (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am looking through the sources mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language) to check which ones mention notability. I found that one talks a lot about a Y compiler. Should that be evidence of the notability of Y itself? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the following: [3]: "...Y - General purpose language syntactically like RATFOR, semantically like C. Lacks structures and pointers. Used as a source language for the Davidson/Fraser peephole optimizer. "The Y Programming Language, D.R. Hanson, SIGPLAN Notices 16(2):59-68 (Feb 1981). ftp://ftp.cs.princeton.edu/pub/y+po.tar.Z...". If the language was needed just to do peephole optimization research, then it is probaby not that notable. The researchers in computer science often don't have time to handle complex real-life languages, like C, so they simplify the problem by choosing some toy language. This way they don't need to care e.g. about parser etc., but concentrate on the problem which they want to research (peephole optimization in this case). Is there any evidence that the language was used for anything else then input language for research? Dekart (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the language seems to be just one computer scientists often define to make it easier to solve a particular research problem (in order to avoid having to work on a full programming language). If the research topic this language was invented for isn't notable then the language itself is very unlikely to be so. —Ruud 10:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember that we have general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which say that as long as it is a non-trivial mention it can count towards notability. Let's say there were five research papers, and each had a main research topic which was non-notable (each topic only was explored in each paper) - But let's say each paper (as in all five papers) had a non-trivial mention of Y and explained how it works, or parameters, or its purposes. That would make five sources describing Y which is enough to pass GNG. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what the GNG says, but I'm not going to be drawn into hypothetical here: from what I saw Y is a typical one-off toy language invented purely for the purposes of doing some other piece of research (i.e. something that's not inverting a new programming language; computer scientists like to make such languages up all the times, I've done so myself a few times, and obviously they get published as part of publishing the actual research that's being done.) It's thus at best the research on the peephole optimizer that is notable, not Y, and probably neither. Please don't try to create an article making this pass for a real programming language, which it doesn't seem to be, misleading readers in the process. —Ruud 16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry - the way I write content myself in articles is just to describe it as reliable sources describe it. If the research papers call it a "programming language" then Wikipedia should call it a "programming language" - If they call it a "test language" and a "not real programming language" then Wikipedia should describe it as a "test language" and a "not real programming language" - After all Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Also, remember GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - So even if, from a CS standpoint there is a "lack" of notability one can argue it from a "general/GNG" standpoint. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by quoting out-of-context you will obviously able to sell any lie. But as you seem to insist on keeping to completely miss the point here, I don't think it would be very fruitful to continue this conversation. —Ruud 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ruud: Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." And, no, the "context" won't be omitted. If the papers have the "context" then we document it and explain the context on the talk page. If the paper defines "computer language" a certain way, and it says so explicitly, then we document that. If the paper has explanations, we document those explanations. If the paper just says "Y computer language" and there is no further explanation in the paper's pages, then that's all we have.

The part about "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors" is very, very relevant. You say "computer scientists like to make such languages up all the times, I've done so myself a few times, and obviously they get published as part of publishing the actual research that's being done." - Again, we're talking about GNG. If these papers happen to say enough about these make-up languages (i.e. if they are non-trivial), believe it or not, they qualify for Wikipedia articles (and all of the context will be accounted for, since we have talk pages). If they don't say enough about the make-up languages, they certainly don't. Significant coverage is defined like this: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that of course the occasional exception exists, such as Featherweight Java, a toy-version of Java that was specifically designed and published in order for computer scientist to be able to speak the same language when studying object-oriented languages. FJ was relatively widely re-used and the paper describing this language has over 600 citations and would easily pass the GNG. —Ruud 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea for a new article :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Members of WikiProject Computer Science are invited to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler, an AfD which has been relisted twice already due to lack of participation. (It seemed relevant to post this announcement here because the only article which links to Virtual Forge CodeProfiler is List of tools for static code analysis, which is tagged as within the scope of this WikiProject.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you tag the article's talk page with {{WikiProject Computer science}} and/or {{WikiProject Computing}}, the nomination will show up on the article alerts of the respective project. More people are likely to notice that. —Ruud 09:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A new CS article KSSOLV is up for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSSOLV. Tkuvho (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:List of NP-complete problems#Copyright issues. RDBury (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A request for comment about a figure concerning information science is found here. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Last month in the Executable UML article a link was added to Umple in the "See also" section (see here), which was undone (see here) and restored (see here), etc... And since then there is a dispute about this link, see Talk:Executable_UML#Umple_and_Executable_UML. I hereby request for further comments on this matter on the Executable UML talk-page, thanks you -- Mdd (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Members of WikiProject Computer Science are invited to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConQAT, an AfD which has been relisted due to lack of participation. I've made my own contribution though it would be helpful if other subject-matter experts could offer their own opinions. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Steiner tree in graphs problem is analogous to, but still very different from the Steiner tree problem. The graphs problem was being redirected to the geometric version, but this didn't seem right so I stubbed a blurb into Minimum spanning tree and repointed the redirect, but, since the graph problem is one of Karp's 21 flavors of NP-completeness, it may warrant it's own article and the redirect was hiding the fact that we don't have one. Plus, there are probably direct links to the geometric version that should properly go to the graph version; I've tried to fix some of them but there is a lot to go through.--RDBury (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On suggestion by Gryllida I'm posting here to ask for comments and input on my effort to make perl-related pages show up in searches for "perl programming". My questions center mainly around how to achieve this while staying within the wikipedia rule framework. Please take a look if you have the time and interest. Mithaldu (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to help out in this project, and saw you're trying to fill out articles on subjects from the NIST database. I decided to jump in with the first one on the list, and came up with this: User:JessRyanA/2-left_hashing. It's clearly just a stub, but there isn't much to go on at the NIST site. I may look for more sources later. I considered breaking it up and filling it out a bit more like 2-choice hashing, but it is tagged OR, and I think I agree. The extra content is likely correct, and follows pretty clearly from the source, but isn't actually in the source.

Is this good enough to create the article, or should I put more into it first? Jessica Ryan (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't sure if it was safe to add categories to my user-space article, or if it would cause problems. Can I? Jessica Ryan (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as non-expert your article design seems quite (or to) technical. You might want to look how third party sources introduce this topic, and add this info in your own words; And add a reference to that source, which is needed anyway.

Also it is indeed not safe to add categories to a user-space article. You could add [[:Category:Computer science]] which lists the tag, but doesn't add it to the category. For more general info see WP:AFC. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You could cite Berthold Vöcking, How Asymmetry Helps Load Balancing, Journal of the ACM, 50(4):568-589, July 2003, which is the source used by Paul Black in his summary of 2-left hashing. Reading Vöcking's JACM article might give you more ideas for how to present the material. If you don't have access to JACM, ask at WP:REX and someone may be able to send you a copy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll have to request a copy of that. There aren't many sources out there at all. I found a blog source that points to [4] which covers the math behind the surprising result that the asymmetry is helpful, citing Vöcking as the source. However, at least in that Harvard link, the discussion is of a balls-and-bins problem (with identical structure and results) and doesn't mention the 2-left hashing algorithm. I don't know how to include any of that without it being synthesis. Jessica Ryan (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Vöcking source is the same way - they take it as given that the reader can apply the balls-and-bins model to the actual problem they're working on. The only mention of application is "The applications of this simple balls and bins process are numerous, e.g., dynamic resource allocation, hashing, and on-line load balancing." Jessica Ryan (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, without some sources showing notability (beyond simple definitions) the article would fail a notability challenge and be deleted. So keep it in user space for now until there are enough citations. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was starting to think too. I found one page that described it as "well-known", but that clearly isn't enough to justify notability. It looks like it may be an interesting puzzle to track down where the original idea came from. Maybe it goes by a different name outside of the NIST database. Jessica Ryan (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've found the following survey, which discusses d-left hashing: "Hash-Based Techniques for High-Speed Packet Processing," A. Kirsch, M. Mitzenmacher and G. Varghese. In Algorithms for Next Generation Networks, (G. Cormode and M. Thottan, eds.), pp. 181-218, Springer London, 2010. Another thing: Beware that the reader may have come across the article by accident. IMHO the article should begin more gently with something like "In computer programming, [...]". Compare with the lead section of the article on Cuckoo hashing. Hermel (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

file:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Missing topics about Computers - Skysmith (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is in progress to rename Portal:Computer programming to Portal:software development. Comments are welcome. Bwrs (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for listing this here. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been some IP comments on the talk page of Actor model, and I have made a few limited edits to respond to them. I would like to ask anyone else who is knowledgeable to review the comments and the article, and make any appropriate edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lots of articles at Category:Computer science articles needing expert attention. Is this WikiProject supposed to do something about them? Theme (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To link a category, use an extra colon at the start of the wikilink, like [[: --category name -- ]]. In this case: Category:Computer science articles needing expert attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Edited the link. Theme (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Talk:Tree diagram#Requested move. I believe that "tree diagram", by definition, implies "tree structure", and would like to see Tree diagram moved to Tree diagram (disambiguation) so that the name can redirect to Tree structure. User:Steel1943 disagrees that "tree structure" is the primary topic suggested by the name "tree diagram" (but please see his/her comments, in case I have inadvertently misrepresented them). Other opinions are, I think, necessary. Cnilep (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on this question at the Talk:Systems design#Wrong title. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Portal:Technology

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm working on an update for Module:Math at the moment, and I have a question about the greatest common divisor function when passed zero and negative numbers. If you know about that kind of thing, I'd be grateful if you could comment over at Module talk:Math#Testcases. Thanks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Any cons in renaming articles having suffix "(programming)" to "(computer programming)", as in most instances in Category:Programming language concepts and Category:Programming constructs? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear computer scientists: I asked a PhD in computer science about this old Afc submission and he said "Well, it's conceivable....". Should the article be rescued from G13 deletion, or is it too obscure? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not well written nor well sourced — it appears to be very specific to one sub-area of computer science, parallelizing compiler optimization, but is written as if it applies more generally. Also, it's not really about what its subject line says it's about — what it's really about is not algorithms at all, but limitations in existing parallelizing compilers. We already have for some reason three articles on this subject, at least — Automatic parallelization, Vectorization (parallel computing), and Automatic parallelization tool, and it's not clear to me why we need a fourth saying only that these tools have limitations. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Irregular algorithm is a concept that comes up in the context of, for instance, sparse matrix and graph computations. For these data structures, lack of a regular structure both interferes with automatic parallelization and good memory caching performance. Beyond the definition and noting the difficulties, I don't know of any in depth treatments of the topic. It may not be worth a standalone article. I added a sentence and ref noting irregular algorithms to the section Automatic parallelization#Difficulties. --Mark viking (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, should it be deleted, or should it be a changed to a redirect to Automatic parallelization#Difficulties, or, if the content is not useful, should a fresh redirect with this title be created instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The second option (change to redirect) seems ok to me. It's not so bad that it needs to be expunged from the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Change to redirect is the best option, as this is a plausible search term and in my opinion the article was not horrible, the topic just fails notability. --Mark viking (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear computer scientists:

The above old declined Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Can someone at this project tell me if this is a notable topic and if the article should be rescued and improved rather than deleted? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We just started a new project over at Wikidata: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics. I hope some of you will take the time to visit or participate! For those of you that haven't heard: We are trying to centralize data about everything that is on Wikipedia. That way all languages benefit from accurate information and we can provide dynamic pages based on what the user is interested in (e.g. List of all CPUs build between 1991 and 1993) --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear computer scientists: This old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject, and should it be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this or at least its author might justify an article (the latter per WP:PROF), but finding GNG coverage for academic stuff is always a challenge. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear computer science experts: This page was created in Afc space, but never submitted. I'm not sure if I should be reporting it here, or if there is a more appropriate project. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been working on a new language called ASIL. At this point, I don't need any coding help, but I could use someone to tell me what they think of the language. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia I can ask for help? It's doesn't look like Sourceforge's own jobs system is set up to look for the kind of help i need. It's more like they help find coders. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "boutique computer" is, but I found the term in five Wikipedia articles, and now they are all red links. Google reveals that many pages use the term and presume that the reader knows what it means. Can the links be made blue links? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ModT (ModularTheuws). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Radhika Nagpal. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I need some help with the article The Magic Cauldron (essay). It's up for deletion and it could really use the input of some people more savvy with computer science in general. Right now I'm just looking for sources and throwing what I can find on the page to help establish notability. It looks to be fairly highly cited as a source in various academic texts, both as part of the overall book but mostly as a specific cite in and of itself. Anyone here familiar with Eric Raymond's work or would be able to look at the article and help flesh it out and look for more sourcing? I'm doing what I can, but this really needs the help of someone who can do justice to the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Visovari/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable algorithm, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is notable, as I just stated in a comment on the draft. But it's not a very readable or useful article as-is. Without someone working to fix it up to the point where it can be submitted, what can be done with it but deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about this topic to do it. However, now that you have edited it that delays the deletion for six months. Maybe someone will read this and decide to work on it. If at any time you feel that it would be better gone, you could revert your edit and stick a "db-g13" template on the page instead. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the lead to make it more accessible and added the Freuder paper as David suggested. I agree the topic is notable and as a stub/start class article it needs work, but is useful addition to the encyclopedia. By the basic standards for AfC, I think it is ready for mainspace. --Mark viking (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Mark viking. It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exponential Search. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear programming experts: Is this a notable person, and should this old abandoned Afc submission be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Fractal tree index. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear computer science experts: This article about a computer science topic was declined once at Afc, but has been resubmitted and is waiting for review. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Microscale and Macroscale Models. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NOLAP is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOLAP until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McSly (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all: I recently ran across the article "Iacono's working set structure" which only cites single 2001 paper by Iacono. (The other citation is just for splay trees.) As written, it looks like the subject is not notable enough to be encyclopedic, but that could just be due to the poor level of citation.

Is this topic is important enough to deserve mention? I found only a single hit for the title phrase in googlebooks and none in googlescholar. Can anyone help confirm it is OK or else confirm it's a good candidate for deletion? Thank you Rschwieb (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The original paper on this topic has been cited some 62 times according to Google scholar. And there is additional research on this specific structure, under a different name (the "unified structure"), by a disjoint set of researchers: A simplified and dynamic unified structure, M Bădoiu, ED Demaine, LATIN 2004. It's covered in non-trivial detail by a secondary source (by yet another set of authors): A History of Distribution-Sensitive Data Structures, P Bose, J Howat, P Morin, Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and …, 2013. To me that indicates that it's probably notable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have little expertise in this area, but it looks ok to me. Google scholar search for the title phrase found multiple papers by independent groups of researchers on this topic, so it seems to be a notable one — in many cases AfC's looking like this one are based on a single paper which has made little impact in the scientific literature, but I don't think that's a problem here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just reporting this old Afc submission before it disappears as a stale draft, in case it's of interest to anyone at this project. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By now it has disappeared but it seems little loss to me. It was very poorly sourced and did not convince me of its notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello computer science enthusiasts! I'm not sure if this is a notable artificial intelligence journal or not, but in any case the Afc submission about it will be deleted soon unless someone takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Rabin–Karp algorithm#Suggested move may be of interest to members of this project. Favonian (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear computer science experts: Here's an Afc submission about an interesting software development topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

{{CSCOTW}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Supersingular Isogeny Key Exchange needs your help. Please chime at the Articles for creation help desk. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Data consolidation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started a short article about SiSense, the company I work for. I am working to stay well inside the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies, and have consulted a number of independent reliable sources, and have worked to keep the article neutral. If anybody has feedback, suggestions, or concerns about the article, please let me know, or improve the article as you see fit. I also expect to add short sections about SiSense's history and technology in the coming week. -82.166.16.70 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This project, and the associated portal Portal:Computer science, is inactive. Let's try to revive it! Here is the plan:

• sort out all the inactive members Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science/Participants (considered inactive when they haven't made a single contribution on en.wikipedia for one year)  Done
• identify, among the remaining members, who is still editing computer-science related articles
• send them messages to invite them to join the effort
• update the TODO list of the project because some links are not relevant anymore
• propose some concrete projects:
  • catching up with the backlog of importance assessments
  • review the state of computer science on en.wikipedia
  • propose to focus edits on some high-traffic low-quality articles
• try to build a community: IRC channel, meetups?

Pintoch (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There’s an RfC at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation, asking:

“Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not?”

Concretely, proposed edit (diff):

“A superficially similar feature is string literal concatenation, which concatenates adjacent string literals during lexical analysis, for example replacing "abc" "def" with "abcdef".”

Any comments are most welcome – please reply at the talk page!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Algorithm examples for a discussion on the naming and use of this article -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#CatVisor and User:Paradoctor/CatVisor#Planned features if you are willing and able to assist this innovative WP project move along it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For your information: The above user seems to be mass-producing articles on (notable?) computer scientists. No user page, but see here: [5] YohanN7 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Schulman definitely is notable. Some of the other more junior ones are far less clear. And the formatting of the article categories is broken. But the number of new articles is not really on a mass scale (only nine so far, easy enough to check and clean up all of them individually). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Should there not be a sub-category:Bibliographic identifiers under category:Identifiers ? Many such are used in template:citation etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hum, maybe… Anyway I don't understand why this Category:Identifiers is tagged by the WikiProject Computer science. Isn't WikiProject Computing more relevant? And still, it has very little to see with computing, don't you think? Pintoch (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda annoying that this redirects to the FSA page because the notion is obviously more general. JMP EAX (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, often redirects are set to what seems like the best link we have, but many are really interim solutions until someone comes along to develop the topic in more detail. Beyond finite state recognizers, we have articles on syntactic monoid, ω-regular language, and Büchi automaton, but none of those are general enough, either. A possible solution would be to turn the redirect into an article. One possible survey article for the infinite stuff would be Automata and semigroups recognizing infinite words. --Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If a full article would be too much work to put together, a set index article could be an easy way to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it is funny that Recognizer redirects to FSA and Recognizable language redirects to… Recursively enumerable language! After all, the difference between FSA and TM isn't that big, is it? Pintoch (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The same problem basically exists in the header of the 4th/last column in Template:Formal languages and grammars, titled "Minimal [[Finite-state machine|automaton]]". Piped link goes to FSA again. Automaton surely looks too broad for a TCS topic though. JMP EAX (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Following a few links, it seems abstract machine is the best bet insofar. The article isn't in great shape though. I have read the first couple of pages from the van Emde Boas paper/chapter cited there, and it is indeed what we want for a topic like this. Too bad the wiki article's text reflects almost nothing from the ref cited, at least as far as the text before the machine list is concerned. It seems someone just added that ref as a substitute for the article rather than base the article on it... A sort of "read this instead clueless newbs". The wiki article also has one of my favorite headings "==Information==" with the meaning of "==stuff goes here==". JMP EAX (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also some material about this at Automata theory#Formal definition. Wherever this material ends up, we should probably leave a pointer to it in the language recognition disambiguation page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I recently proposed that software development process be merged into software development. Feel free to join the discussion, or to improve the content of the articles. (Software development process is a bit too long because it overlaps internally and with subarticles, though I'm slowly chipping away at it.) -- Beland (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I found the following pages very unwieldy to edit because of the duplication. Dunno where to add material basically:

• Context-free grammar vs Context-free language
• Context-sensitive language vs Context-sensitive grammar; please read the lead of that latter article to also see why noncontracting grammar might also be worth merging with those two.

Thoughts? JMP EAX (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would keep the current separation. Context-free language should be a general presentation of this class of languages, relating them of course to context-free grammar but also to push-down automata, categorial grammar and so on. Context-free grammar should focus on the grammar as an object in itself, proper CFGs, Chomsky Normal Form, and subclasses like LR. I think some paragraphs from context-free grammar could be transferred to context-free language.

Nowadays there are so many different grammar frameworks that we deal with context-free languages very often without using CFGs at all.

I would keep Context-sensitive language and Context-sensitive grammar separate for the same reason, but I would merge Noncontracting grammar with Context-sensitive grammar because the notions are the same. − Pintoch (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find you argument compelling. In practice the language article is just a poor cousin of the grammar one. Look at Indexed language and Indexed grammar. The former doesn't even say WTF an linearly indexed language is. JMP EAX (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then would you merge Regular language with Finite state automaton? Or with Regular expression? Or with Prefix grammar? (and so on.) I agree that currently the state of the context-free and context-sensitive articles is quite bad, because the overlap between them is not handled properly, but I still think these articles should remain separate. However, for notions that are less widespread, it would make sense to merge the articles so that we can focus on one article. Maybe it would be the right thing to do for Indexed language and Indexed grammar. − Pintoch (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To give you the ultimate example why this practice is bad, I just watched the appearance of Mildly context-sensitive grammar formalism as a clear WP:POVFORK of [6]. JMP EAX (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The article on regular language makes a bit of sense separately because regular expression turns out to have way more stuff because the notion was extended in programming practice. So if want to be pedantic, the first article is about regular expression (theoretical computer science), while the 2nd is regular expression (computer programming). I never said anything about merging the automata articles with the grammar/language ones. But when you define a language by its grammar, it makes little sense to have two articles. JMP EAX (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I mention we have Rational series and Rational language? JMP EAX (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am sure you can find lots of such pairs of articles. I have already said that I do agree with you that some of them could certainly be merged, because there are not enough things to say about them to keep the distinction useful. The goal of my example about regular languages was not to be pedantic but to show that, in some cases, it makes sense to keep the treatment of the language and the grammar separate. And you agree with that. Then, we have to decide where to put the limit: what is the notability threshold above which we should separate the articles? You think that context-free grammars and context-free languages should be merged, I have explained why I think they shouldn't (because there are many definitions of this family of languages and many of them don't deal with CFGs), so I think we should simply wait for some other opinions about that. Cheers. − Pintoch (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Some time ago I made a start on trying to sort out the terminology on Wikipedia for rational, regular and recognisable languages. Some texts treat all three as synonyous, but I wanted to distinguish the case of working over an arbitrary monoid. For various reasons I didn't get very far. It would be good if someone more knowledgeable and energetic were to complete the task. Deltahedron (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as can tell "rational language" is exactly the same thing as "regular language", except coming from the perspective of rational series. But you cannot actually define a simple, solely string-based language using that other than the regular/rational. What can do with rational series more generally is to define weighed rational expressions (I gave an example of this on Talk:rational language) which are interpreted as giving the structure of weighted automata. But these aren't simply recognizers of string-based formal languages. Anyway, I've added the necessary prerequisites to star semiring and I'm working my way through the formal power series article, which also needs the semiring version of the notion detailed. After that I'll be able to spiffy rational series and weighted automata and write weighed rational expression. As for rational language it should be redirected to regular language although it will need an explanation there. JMP EAX (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is true that rational is the same as regular (Kleene-Schützenberger Theorem) over many semirings. Has it been been shown in general? Sakarovich already identified rational monoids as a class for which rational and recongisable coincide. Deltahedron (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with this? JMP EAX (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you do, then please say so. Deltahedron (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are actually talking about rational set vs recognizable set. Those sets aren't called "languages" by anyone as far as I know (except in the case of the free monoid, in which case the two notions coincide [by Kleene's theorem]). JMP EAX (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article on formal power series currently has focus on power series over rings, and mainly in commuting vatiables. To write that out again in terms of power series over semirings would overbalance it. Why not expand the shorter article at rational series? Deltahedron (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You have free hand. Amuse me further. JMP EAX (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to try to make this article carbon-based-life-form readable?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that this isn't really a topic on computer science; it is a fairly specialized topic in condensed matter physics. That said, I agree that the article is too heavy on jargon and too light on readable explanation. --Mark viking (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Artificial intelligence. The issue has to do with the wording of the lede of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some eyes could be used on this article. The RFC was prematurely closed so the two people most involved could form a compromise that doesn't seem (to me) to have been where the RFC was heading. APL (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if anyone interested would comment on the following RfC: Talk:Artificial intelligence#RfC: Should this article define AI as studying/simulating "intelligence" or "human-like intelligence"?. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A new RFC has replaced the old one, please see Talk:Artificial intelligence#Another RfC on "human-like" - 83.104.46.71 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (steelpillow (talk · contribs) having login problems)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Metacompiler. The issue has to do with lede stating:

The feature that sets a metacompiler apart from a standard compiler-compiler is that a metacompiler is written in its own language and translates itself.

And a proposed change to be more consistent with existing definitions.

Need some eyes on this subject. Historically some metacompile have been developed in other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamerandy (talk • contribs) 01:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please could someone take a look at the External Links section of the Binary decision diagram article? It is enormous and has been in the Spam Cleanup category [1] since 2009!

I've removed the links; link farms like this aren't appropriate as Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the scope of the Computer science project? I ask because I'm finding several articles tagged for the project, but don't (in my opinion) have much to do with Computer Science and would be more appropriate for the Computing project. (Two current examples are Code page 770 and Code page 771.) When is an article appropriate for the CS project, and when should it be in the Computing project? What taxonomy is followed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, many articles tagged with Computer Science should be tagged with Computing instead. I have not been able to find guidelines concerning this, but as the wikiproject is not very active, feel free to define them and tag articles accordingly. − Pintoch (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I now completed short article about SiSense (mentioned here previously, see archives from July 2014). I hope I have succeeded in keeping the article neutral and well sourced. If anybody has feedback, suggestions, or concerns about the article, please let me know, or improve the article as you see fit. -Itayerez (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Consistency (database systems) on merging Data consistency into it, and would appreciate any input. Thank you. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome any assistance with Deductive lambda calculus to make it a better more balanced page.

In particular I would like a section added on Curry's Type Systems as mentioned in,

• Henk Barendregt, The Impact of the Lambda Calculus in Logic and Computer Science. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Volume 3, Number 2, June 1997.

• Illative lambda calculus
• Type systems
• Illative lambda calculi

If you would like to help add a comment to the talk page.

Thepigdog (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A new editor was asking on my talk page about notability for a new article they wrote. I don't know enough about computers to completely answer. Please discuss at the article's talk page. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure this is in the scope of this WikiProject, it is rather about computing than computer scienc, but I have started a discussion on the talk page. − Pintoch (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

MQL4 seems to be some proprietary domain-specific language developed by a company called MediaQuotes Software Corp (link). Its only use is to trade on the MetaTrader 5 Trading platform (link). It appears to be a simple extension of C++. Given the narrow use case and limited technical novelty, in my opinion it is not enough to warrant an entire article about the language itself. Perhaps it could be a section in the general article about MediaQuotes or MetaTrader the website/company/whatever, if such an article were to pass all the regular guidelines on wikipedia pages about corporations. Andrew Helwer (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The article History of logic has been nominated for a featured article here. The nominating editor has asked for help concerning the post-WWII period (see this post). Any assistance would be appreciated

The article Invasive weed optimization algorithm is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasive weed optimization algorithm (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 February 2011

I wrote an article about y-fast tries, a data structure for bounded universes that improves on x-fast tries. Any and all constructive feedback is appreciated. Rf insane (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011

As an evolving science many experts hold conflicting views, and the taxonomy is inconsitent

A wireless body area network (WBAN) is a radio frequency (RF) based wireless networking technology. It is the integration of intelligent, miniaturized, low power sensor node in, on or around a human body to monitoring body function. It interact with tiny nodes with sensor or actuator capability in or around the human body. WBAN is a special kind of network which is design and developed for human body , monitoring manage and communicate different vital signs of human body like temperature blood pressure ECG etc.. The vital signs can be monitored by using different sensor installed on clothes or on the body or even under the skin WBAN consists of two types 1. In-Body area network 2. On-Body area network It use three tier Architecture 1.Intra-BSN :-tier 1 2.Inter-BSN :-tier 2 3. Beyond-BSN :-tier 3 WBAN Architecture is two types 1.Flat Architecture Multi-Tier Architecture

WBAN Architecture Consists on 4 characteristics 1.Wireless sensor 2.Wireless Actuator 3.Wireless Central Unit 4.Wireless personal Device

Hello! Can someone knowledgeable weigh in on whether or not Draft:Michael Segal is notable? Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The citation record is unclear but editor-in-chief of JCSS is enough for WP:PROF by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

i have doubts regarding software engineering optimization

Hello, I'm looking for a mentor for a bit help with editing my first article. I've been doing some basic research on compilers and I noticed that the compiler page was missing a bit of citations, but I have found a few during my research. I've only done minor changes/grammar changes on wikipedia, but with tackling something bigger I think it would be nice to have someone guide me through the process.

If anyone is interested helping me out contact me on my talk page or send me an email. Thank you! --CurryMi40 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd advice you to have a look at how things work in an article with references and footnotes. Here is a short one that has the system I prefer myself, Group structure and the axiom of choice. Just open the source and look at the workings of the reference system. All these things are documented somewhere, look under "help" far left or type help: in the search box. YohanN7 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations. Just be bold and try. If you don't succeed you can leave a message on my talk page. —Ruud 13:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please just try the edits and don't even try to format the references at first. Have a look at some refs in the article (as they appear when viewing the article, not when editing) and note what is displayed (something like author, year, title, pages, publisher, isbn). Just type the wanted text for the reference into the article between square brackets without any formatting. Later you can try formatting the refs. Or, if you just ignore them, someone will come along and format them for you. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Internal System Proxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Internal system proxy (redirect to above)

This has to be a hoax but I would like some confirmation before escalating. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, that's clearly a hoax. The actual name of the first photo is "Sound Blaster AWE64.jpg"… − Pintoch (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Viola–Jones object detection framework article has been seriously damaged by the last few edits: there are lots of formatting issues and I am not sure they are worth being fixed as the added content looks poor. I propose to restore this version, but I don't have rollback rights. What do you think? − Pintoch (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pintoch: I'm new enough that I haven't applied for rollback rights yet. However, I would like to state that I support this rollback. These new edits seem to specifically address face detection, which although fine in concept, doesn't seem right to me for these reasons: layout is worse, lead section is more muddled and makes a technical article less understandable. One possible way to include the new information after rollback is to add a new "Example" section in which the Viola-Jones framework is applied specifically to face detection. scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 18:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A WP:ROLLBACK reverts only the edits of the most recent contributor, but since the version indicated above, there have been edits by three different users - Soumyanilcsc (talk · contribs), 141.213.66.78 (talk) and 193.52.161.170 (talk). If rollback is used on Viola–Jones object detection framework, only those of 193.52.161.170 will be reverted, and so it will become identical to this version. To go back any further needs a different technique: go to the page history, find the revision that you wish to revert to, then either

1. click the "07:31, 4 September 2014" link, click the "Edit" tab
2. click the "cur" link at the left-hand end of the row, click the "undo" link at upper right

in either case, you'll get an edit window. Don't make any changes to the text but enter an edit summary like "Revert to version of 07:31, 4 September 2014, see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Viola–Jones object detection framework]]" and click Save page. The difference between the two is that in case (2), Soumyanilcsc will receive a Notification for the reversion, but in case (1) they won't. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably the most common form of vandalism I see in CS articles is people adding links to their toy GitHub project where they implement the algorithm/concept/data structure in question. I've been removing them on sight. It's only a matter of time before someone gets defensive about that, so should we be proactive and codify removal of GitHub links into policy? Some reasons:

• The repo owners are almost always the ones adding the links, which falls under WP:PROMOTION
• Almost all examples are unmaintained/abandoned and don't have a proper license
• A bunch of obtuse, unedited, and buggy source code contributes very little to the informative power of an article
• If the code really does contribute to the article, it can be added to the article itself (I contributed some Python code here)

I'm still on the fence about encyclopedic source code in general, actually. I've had people point out bugs in that Python code over the years though, so I guess it's useful to some people. Anyway, thoughts about GitHub (and source code in general)? Andrew Helwer (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in general a pseudocode^* implementation in the article is sufficient and external links to real implementations don't add much value. However, I don't think this is specific to code hosted on GitHub and I think having a link to an "industrial strength" implementation (Stony Brook Algorithms Repository, Boost, LEDA, part of some other well-known and well-maintained library) is fine, and I wouldn't want to exclude those if they would ever happen to get hosted at GitHub.

^* I don't think having a Python, C and Java implementation in the Boyer–Moore article is all that useful either. A single easy to read pseudocode implementation would suffice. The status quo has been to move the actual implementations to the Algorithms WikiBook or Rosetta Code. I'd conjecture that the vast majority of actual code on Wikipedia is incorrect: often because well-meaning editors make small changes over time without bothering to check if the code still actually runs. Psuedocode has the advantage that it can often be sourced to a research paper, is easier to check for correctness due to its high-level nature, and is immune to a large class of subtle bugs actual code can suffer from —Ruud 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Having implemented many wikipedia pseudocode examples for Rosetta code, they can sometimes miss out "obvious" (to the writer), steps; but are generally good. --Paddy (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most or all of the above: multiple implementations within an article in different languages aren't helpful and pseudocode is generally a better choice than a specific programming language; external links to personal projects on github or wherever else are generally not very helpful and should probably not be included (per WP:ELNO); industrial-strength projects should be linked, regardless of whether they are hosted on github. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just like wikipedia, Rosetta code examples are reviewed and maintained by its community. To a programmer, having source in their language can be a great aid to understanding a topic, Links to Rosetta Code are useful. --Paddy (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Generally support the ideas and the observations above. Generally, when I see someone add a github link, I follow the link. If the project is recent, then I revert the added link on the grounds that the addition probably was advertising and the project hasn't been around long enough to have any significant review. Glrx (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think we don't want to link to Boost even for some general algorithm, unless the subject of the article was about Boost specifically in some way or at least something that was known/popular because of Boost. I can't think of an example of the latter. Please remove these links if you see them: per WP:ELNO I think we want pseudocode at least in the article so we don't need a link to an example impl. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so how about the following? An external link to an implementation is allowed if one of the following is satisfied:

• The implementation itself satisfies WP:IMPORTANCE (it could arguably have its own page where it is WP:ELOFFICIAL, but no editor has yet created it)
• The implementation is the product of a WP:IMPORTANCE organization or project (ex: projects under Apache or Boost)
• The implementation is written by a WP:IMPORTANCE individual or person involved in a foundational paper on the subject

On the secondary topic of encyclopedic source code, it is to be discouraged in favor of pseudocode. I'm also trying to think of a different area of Wikipedia which might have dealt with similar issues - maybe fan covers or remixes of famous songs in the age of YouTube and SoundCloud? Andrew Helwer (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Helper class has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"dictionary definition" which is not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:NOT) - but also no-one agrees on the definition of a helper class and there are no reliable sources!

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. greenrd (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How does one add an article to the attention of a project? I noticed that this article: Web Ontology Language isn't assigned to any projects. I think it would make sense for this project. Actually, another thing I was wondering about is: is there are any guideline as to when something is relevant to the Computer Science project vs. the Computing project? Seems like a lot of overlap. Finally, back to the OWL article someone has slapped a lot of "non primary source" tags on it. That seems wrong to me. I'm going to look for other sources anyway to address that issue (my philosophy is you can never have too many good refs) but in general (see my comment on the OWL talk page) it seems to me that if I say "Version X of Fact++ uses the OWL standard" that quoting the manual or spec for Version X of Fact++ is a perfectly fine way to reference. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the Computing banner to the top of the article's talk page, which adds it to the Computing WikiProject. I chose Computing rather than Computer Science, as OWL seem more of an application than a theoretical computer science concept. Investigating the closely related article Ontology language also shows the Computing banner, so it it probably a good choice. Yes, I agree that the non-primary tag bombing in the lead is a bit much. While we prefer secondary sources, authoritative primary sources can be OK for verifying basic, uncontroversial facts, such as whether OWL2 is used in Pellet; ref 8 is pretty clear about OWL2 in Pellet. But I'm no expert--I could be missing some controversy about OWL2 inclusion. --Mark viking (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I added several references to books such as Programming the Semantic Web that are secondary sources and talk about reasoners such as Fact++ and Pellet so I felt it was justified to remove the tags. I left the primary source documents as well though, IMO in this case someone coming to that article should be directed toward them as good references and also as documents that would be a logical place to go to get more info. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I added pseudocode example in Differential evolution. I would appreciate if anyone could check if edit look good and follow wikipedias guidelines- Esa-petri (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Ryzhou (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually came here to suggest an article on the OptP complexity class... but I couldn't help notice the complaint above... and I want to complain about the opposite! I guess it depends who you ask. 86.127.138.234 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a French contributor and quite a beginer on Wikipedia.

The page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DropTask seems biased to me. It has mostly been written by the software's creator, according to the page history.

I don't know how to deal with this and I don't have informations about the subject, so I am not able to add content to the article. The search I made on the Internet was not fruitful.

This is why I pass the problem on... I would gladly receive information about what to do on those occasions. Eilean Liber (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Good spot! You're right, this article is blatant promotion: written by the software's creator using marketing language. So, we have WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. The proper course of action here is to set the WP:PRD tag on the article (which I have done). We should also look at reverting most of ThinkProductivity's contributions, since they are a WP:SPA. Andrew Helwer (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, this whole collaborative/project management software category is an enormous trash pit of spam. Luckily we have the List of collaborative software and Comparison of project management software pages to act as quarantine zones. I deleted a few spammy "competitor" sections from some borderline-spam articles. Andrew Helwer (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Branching discussion from above to the legal issue of using pseudocode from papers and textbooks. Anyone have ideas on this? I've been using pseudocode from this paper on the CRDT article. Andrew Helwer (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember that it's not the algorithm that can be copyrighted (patented maybe, but that's a different discussion), but only it's expression. Various syntactic modifications you make to the pseudocode in order to integrate it with the article are thus likely to invalidate any copyrights. If this is not possible for some reason, the code is critical to the article and you explicily attribute the code to a the paper, then this would likely be fair use. —Ruud 10:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the classic NP-complete problems. 86.127.138.234 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

3-dimensional matching, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Two NP-complete possibilities I know of: graph partitioning of suitable graphs into triangles is NP-complete, e.g. [7], and minimum-weight triangulations. --Mark viking (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have virtually given up on Wikipedia as a useful source of information with respect to Math or Science, and especially computer science. There was a time in the past when I would refer my children to WP for more information regarding physics, computing topics, etc. And in the past, they were able to learn something. No so anymore. Recently (over the past few years), articles are being rewritten by so-called subject matter experts, seemingly without regard to the audience.

The vast majority of readers who want to learn about networks and for example, graph theory, have no formal education or background in the field. It would be nice if the hyper-technical terms were kept to a minimum, and examples would be geared less toward the scientist, and more toward an average reader who just want to get a feel for the subject matter.

I am an experienced computer scientist, and I find the discussions regarding almost every single topic, whether it be number theory or architecture, confusing and frustrating to read. This should not be the case. I fear that most would-be contributors of late would rather see themselves appear "smart" on the page, rather than impart wisdom and accurate information. It's as though the "keep it simple" concept has been abandoned for the sake of ego.

There needs to be a movement from within WP to simplify ALL articles, and to ensure that readability and comprehensibility is enhanced for the average reader, which would probably be a 9th grade level reader (in the US). If this isn't done, and done soon, I fear that once was good and useful will be lost forever.

Wikipedia is very good at biographical topics. That's pretty much all I use it for now. It should be more like an encyclopedia used to be... A place where anyone could go to learn something on just about any topic. To the extent that it fails at that goal, it will become increasing irrelevant and unusable. Therefore, you would-be "expert" contributors need to ask yourself if it's really important to cram in a "big word", where 2 or 3 smaller ones would suffice. Most of the tech articles now read about as well as a poorly developed college textbook. And that is in no way a Good Thing.

Good feedback. I also have trouble learning new algorithms from their wiki pages, but we must work within WP:NOTGUIDE where we inform rather than instruct. Many topics just cannot be succinctly explained without reference to established knowledge, which requires "hyper-technical" terms. Can you provide an example of where this becomes intellectual showboating? Can you give an example (or create one yourself) of a good computer science article? Andrew Helwer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:About says it is a source for everyone...

• Is this project the right scope for a rehaul of the entire wikipedia?
• What level of Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests are you proposing for being required for reading comprehension?
• How do you propose to track or identify these articles which are too high level or specific?
• Can compromise be found in by other experts or teachers adding in summaries at the top without violating Wikipedia rules?

IamM1rv (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning who developed the BASIC programming language at Talk:BASIC#Sister Keller. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_goal

"Non-functional requirements (or quality attributes, qualities, or more colloquially "-ilities") are global qualities of a software system, such as flexibility, maintainability, usability, and so forth. Such requirements are usually stated only informally; and they are often controversial (i.e. management wants a secure system but staff desires user-friendliness). They are also often difficult to validate." is not cited! (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=293165) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.242.222.208 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence Zachman Framework has been recently changed from

The Zachman Framework is an enterprise architecture framework...

into

The Zachman Framework is an enterprise ontology...

Which has been questioned at Talk:Zachman Framework#Lead sentence. I would be grateful if any of you could take a look, and comment on this topic. -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done resolved by Kku, thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello folks. Draft:NooJ, about "linguistic development environment software as well as a corpus processor" has been submitted at Articles for Creation, and declined twice for its notability not being clear. The Draft's author has put a lot of work into expanding and improving the references, so it seems a pity to leave this Draft in limbo. Please could you offer any advice on whether this topic meets notability requirements. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur goes shopping: Not exactly my area of expertise, but searching for this on Google Scholar [8] reveals some, although not an overwhelming number, of citations of the manual by scientists other than the developer. It might just pass AfD, the topic/content seems quite uncontroversial and the article a bit technical but otherwise not too badly written, so I would probably give it the benefit of the doubt. —Ruud 14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now accepted the article and moved it to NooJ as a Start class Computer science article. We shall see what happens to it next. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Could we have more info on this subject of virtual reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by MINECRAFT1103 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing moving Model 1 over here, and I'd like some input from this project on the proper new name of the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant and frequently used concept, but this article totally misses the point by mixing performance and maintainability problems. Also the article lacks verifiability (no references for lots of statements). I think the best thing would be to delete and rewrite it. But I'm new here and I'm not sure if I can just do it or should I wait for other opinions? Any recommendation on how to proceed would be welcome! Realvizu (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdisalam Issa-Salwe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdisalam Issa-Salwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that pseudocode examples are superior to actual-language code when it comes to demonstrating how an algorithm works for an encyclopedia.

• Hopefully, the pseudocode is written so that people familiar with a wider range of languages are able to understand it.
• Pseudocode avoids it being necessary to know one particular language.
• Pseudocode is free from the quirks of individual languages. For example, a well-written program in C would free all of the memory that it allocates, which is an issue that is not important for demonstrating how an algorithm works. Also, C, for example, lets people say things like if (!thing) to test if thing is null, but for someone unfamiliar with C, this may be confusing. If thing is a FILE, for instance, it makes no sense to take its logical inversion.
• Using pseudocode means that there does not need to be multiple implementations in numerous languages in an article. Having multiple implementations of the same thing does not add anything to the wiki.

I found some time ago that the page on binary search trees uses many code examples in C++ and Python. This is great for anyone who knows C++ and Python, but if someone unfamiliar with either language wanted to know how to, say, insert an item into a BST, it might be difficult for them to find that information on Wikipedia. To facilitate the transfer of knowledge, I suggest that there be an emphasis on the use of pseudocode rather than actual code.

I have rewritten the examples from the BST page in some form of pseudocode at User:Hwalter42/draft article on binary search tree. I have not at all tried integrating the result with the prose in the article, and do not want to replace the current BST article with this one. But I do want to feedback on the quality/style of the pseudocode, and, of course, its correctness. (I am an enthusiast, not an expert. Also, I am convinced that my delete function is wrong, but my brain is too turned off right now to figure out how to fix it.) More importantly, I also want to know if the use of pseudocode everywhere is something that people support or if the idea should be dropped now. Perhaps there is some substantial upside to using real languages that I am missing?

hwalter42 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I support this kind of thing in general. I'd suggest not using := vs. =, though; maybe := vs. == to help avoid ambiguity. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The consensus has always been that pseudocode is preferred in articles on algorithms (see MOS:ALGO). Actual code is really only necessary in articles on specific programming languages or articles that discuss programming languages contructs and a very precise semantics is required. —Ruud 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree pseudocode benefits articles by removing multiple implementations. However, there is no way of verifying psuedocode implementations are correct, either through unit testing or more formal methods (admittedly these standards aren't imposed on implementations in programming languages). We could use only pseudocode published in well-known papers, but those are notorious for technical errors - and what is pseudocode but a technical expression of a concept? Still, pseudocode copied from a published & cited paper is much, much more reliable and traceable than some implementation by a drive-by editor. Known errors with the pseudocode are often mentioned in subsequent papers, and so can be fixed. If it's just you implementing an algorithm in pseudocode rather than a programming language though, that seems worse than having a programming language implementation. Andrew Helwer (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"seems worse"–It seems better to me, especially if the reader isn't familiar with the syntax of the language. I'm not sure I am understanding your point – most of Wikipedia's content is written by "drive-by editor[s]", and we seem to manage; why are code samples any different? Can you think of an example that would illustrate this concern? Also I'm not sure we can copy pseudocode from papers, most of the time, due to legal issues. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at a notoriously complicated algorithm: Boyer-Moore string search. I have a bunch of unit tests for the article's Python implementation here, and still some bugs get through. A pseudocode implementation wouldn't have the tiniest chance of being bug-free unless it were copied from a published source (and even then, no guarantees) I don't know anything about the legal issues of copying pseudocode. I'm not sure I understand your second question. What do you mean by "this concern"? Andrew Helwer (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may shout down from my ivory tower: pseudocode is perfectly amenable to a formal correctness proof—even much more so than a real implemenation—and such a presentation (pseudocode combined with a correctness proof) is the going standard in the scholarly literature. Assuming the bug in your code was not due to a basic failure in your understanding of the algorithm, it was likely caused (or managed to escape your attention) by the increase of complexity in the real implemenation as compared to pseudocode: pseudocode has a much greater chance of being correct and correctly understood than a real implemenation.

There's also the more pragmatic advantage that an n line psuedocode implementation will be read be a greater number of people than a 5n line implementation in programming language X, which would make it more likely that any mistakes get spotted and corrected.

(Your anecdote of course also nicely demonstrates why unit testing is fairly useless when it comes to demonstrating the correctness of your core algorithms and data structures: a limited number of hand-written testcases will almost surely miss some of the cornercases. With a formal proof, or at least some form of property-based testing, you are much more likely to cover those.) —Ruud 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I definitely don't believe unit tests are sufficient to ensure correctness. When you say formal correctness proof, do you mean the formal computer-checked way or the proofs-should-compel-belief non-formal way you see in papers? Because I've definitely read papers which have a proof of correctness but where the pseudocode is incorrect as exposed by a basic test. Example, a very useful and insightful algorithm, proved correct, but pseudocode that is just dead wrong. I feel I'm derailing this thread though. I concede you can get pseudocode correct enough that anyone writing code based on it will find & fix the bugs themselves. Plus, it's just plain easier to read than actual code. Andrew Helwer (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unit tests may not be sufficient, but they certainly help avoid many mistakes. I also believe that pseudocode is generally better than code for our purposes, but algorithms such as the ones discussed above that are too complex to have much hope of implementing correctly without testing may be an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm glad that the idea is supported, but I don't believe that I am the one who should be writing any pseudocode for most anything, as I don't see myself as qualified (again, I am not confident in the code I wrote for even BST's, which should be fairly simple). As sort of a side note, to address the :=, =, and == thing, I understand your point and am willing to change my own style; however, it shows an issue as to what style of pseudocode should be used. Preferably, it would be consistent across pages, but there is plenty of room for personal style considering as this is, by definition, not a strict language. I saw at the link given above that standardization has already been proposed but abandoned though. hwalter42 (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Both forms, although informal proofs will of course make up the vast majority of correctness arguments you'll find. Nonetheless, they are often sufficently detailed that you should in principle be able to extract some more formal, or even computer-checkable proof, from them in for example Hoare logic. Any steps that require insight, such as comming up with loop invariants, should be derivable from the more informal proof.

Note that I'm not advocating including any formal correntess proofs in our articles, although I do think we can do a bit better on including informal/intuitive correctness arguments in our articles. Such arguments also help readers understand why a particular algorithm works, as merely opposed to how by giving the code. —Ruud 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudocode (in whatever flavor) is just another programming language – without compiler. Well-written C code should be the norm since it has been around since 1843 and likely will be around 2043. Besides, it is punishable by federal law in large parts of the world not to know it/being in the process of learning it for a student of computer science. As has been pointed out, pseudocode is an extra invitation to bugs. (There are enough of those in code that compiles.) Besides, not everybody knows pseudocode (whatever that is, definition please). YohanN7 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is true that pseudocode lacks a compiler or any formal semantics. However, its expressive power does not suffer for it; English is not a formal language, after all. It is difficult to say whether there would be greater or fewer bugs in a C program compared to its pseudocode equivalent. For C we can check that it compiles and passes static analysis and unit tests, but bug-free C code is nearly unachievable (unless you're DJB or something). Let us consider: who is the audience for code in Wikipedia articles? I submit it is people who are trying to learn an algorithm. In my experience as a person trying to learn an algorithm, translating pseudocode to working implementation is where all the magic happens. Pseudocode correctness is just a nice-to-have, which could be accomplished through a high-level specification language such as PlusCal. Achieving consensus on use of a high-level specification language sounds like a lot of work, but if anyone is interested please start another topic and I will support it. Andrew Helwer (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter what language an algorithm is written in unless it is being hidden say in object code nor provided. C and C++ are commonly known. C is close to a C++ subset. A few things are different. I have programed in many languages. Some are vary different. But on the other hand most algorithms are procedural.

I think we should try and be consistent what ever code is used.

Just for the record pseudo code has been used to describe directives and the inclusion of macros in some programing languages and assemblers. The "org" assembly directive is a pseudo instruction to the assembmer. Old terminology I know. But there are historical topics here.

I used the term pseudocode to describe instructions of a pseudo machine. A made up computer instruction set. It is part of a metacompiler. The compiler translates the source language into pseudocode, pseudo instructions. The pseudo instructions might be defined to best implement the language being compiled or generalized for translation to a wide range of real inctructions. pseudo instructions were much like an assembly macro that procedurally generated real machine code.

Things change. What I once called pseudo code is now something quite different. Another 10 years who knows. I just recently started editing. It is hard to explain, in writing, some concepts. I think linking terms to their topic is sometimes the best way to explain a subjects. The needed knowledge is found following those links. To bad we can not easly create flow charts for algorithms.

Oh wait we shouldn't ignore thar there is an international standard language for describing algorithms. It's called ALGOL. ALGOL has a publication form for communicating algorithms.

Steamerandy (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What would a highly technical CS or mathematics article with Good Article status look like? Are there any examples to work off of?

Second question: Does the "useful to nearly all readers" requirement bar some potentially great technical articles from GA status? Or should the articles just be less technical, and leave the tricky details to specialty wikis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Helwer (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more difficult (especially to get readers willing to do the reviews) but iit does happen. For instance, Euclidean algorithm and Problem of Apollonius are featured articles, and Pseudoforest and Shapley–Folkman lemma are good articles. (These are more mathematical than computer science because that's the part of Wikipedia I'm more familiar with and can recall examples in, not because of any important differences that I know about in how CS vs math articles are treated.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The article Consultation (object-oriented programming) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable source cited for this decade-old article which appears to be a fringe POV fork

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. greenrd (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to comment at: Talk:Virtual machine: Split into separate pages for systems and process? on whether to split the Virtual machine page into separate pages for Systems virtual machine and Process virtual machine.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Browsing through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_Tree it looks like the diagram in the top right is incorrect. If I am not mistaken, the "C" needs to be where "D" is, "D" needs to be where "R" is, and "R" needs to be where "C" is.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to directly talk about issues on a page. As just someone who is noting that it may not be correct, I have no idea if this is the right way to go about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.235.253 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You can click the "new section" button when viewing the article's talk page to raise an issue. But for obscure articles, posting to this WikiProject is more likely to get you are timely response.

I didn't hear of wavelet trees before today, and didn't read the cited references, so I'm speculating a bit here: you suggest the the C, D and R nodes need to be rotated to make the tree more "balanced"? But this would not affect the shape of this particular tree depicted in the image?

Also, the image seems to have been created by Giuseppe Ottaviano and was copied almost varbatim from the one in his PODS paper on wavelet trees tries, which makes it rather unlikely the image is incorrect. —Ruud 16:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I recently came across Heap's algorithm and discovered that our pseudocode did not correspond to Heap's description. The algorithm should use exactly one swap between each permutation. Our version has of course spread out to blogs and other places.

The error in our previous pseudocode was that it was performing a swap in the last iteration of the for loop, and you see if you expand the recursive calls, it leads to multiple swap calls in sequence.

I corrected the article (verified the algorithm by implementing it separately). A contributor had made a pretty illustration of the algorithm, however it needs to be updated now for the corrected version. The illustrator has requested we verify the algorithm before they attempt to illustrate it again. If you feel you can offer a second review of this, please help! Thanks sverdrup (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Could anyone assess Draft:Ring Learning with Errors? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See Comparison of Knots and Control Points — an expert review seems needed.

—Hobart (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm proposing a new Wikiproject focussed on information visualisation. Since it has a some relation to this project, I'm adding a notification here. If you're interested, come and help brainstorm over here --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Information_Visualisation --naught101 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear AI experts: I left a requested edit message on the Talk:Brendan Frey page, but then realized that I was the only one watching that page, so the request would likely not be seen. I have a conflict of interest, so I prefer not to edit the article myself. Frey is involved in deep learning and computational biology. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it's done now.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear programming experts: This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone improves it. Is this a notable interpreter?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear programmers: This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone decides to work on it. Is this a notable topic?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a notable topic, but we already have an article about it at Readers–writer lock and this one adds nothing. I'd make a redirect if I could find one reliable source that uses the word "nonex". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a neologism used to spam the single external link present in the article. It should be deleted. —Ruud 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See also the poster's website, where he claims to have invented reader-writer locks and a host of other things. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the Requested articles page for computer science has a request under §Theory and theorem for "Transdichotomous RAM" (source: [9]). A couple of quick searches later, I found Transdichotomous model, which from the definitions appears to be a more general name for it:

"In computational complexity theory, and more specifically in the analysis of algorithms with integer data, the transdichotomous model is a variation of the random access machine in which the machine word size is assumed to match the problem size." (from Transdichotomous model)

"The transdichotomous RAM tries to model a realistic computer. We assume w ≥ lg n; this means that the “computer” changes with the problem size. However, this is actually a very realistic assumption: we always assume words are large enough to store pointers and indices into the data, or otherwise, we cannot even address the input." (from the source for "Transdichotomous RAM")

To me, these seem at least fairly equivalent, but I was hoping that someone more familiar with this area would be able to advise. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, II think they're close enough that we can redirect the request to the existing model. I have done so. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this chap really notable? --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. The citation counts are a bit borderline for WP:PROF#C1 but the Comendador da Ordem Nacional do Mérito Científico might be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A new user recently added a code sample at Model–view–controller. The code sample appears to be written for Spring MVC, with no inline or out-of-line commentary to explain how it works. This project's style guideline says that code samples in articles should "contribute significantly to a fundamental understanding of the encyclopedic content" and "should use a language that clearly illustrates the algorithm to a reader who is relatively unfamiliar with the language." A code sample pasted without explanation does not meet the first standard, and any sample that assumes Java, Java EE, Spring and Spring MVC as a starting point, I believe, cannot satisfy the second standard, especially since this article covers MVC in many other context besides the web. I believe the sample should be removed completely, but I've been criticized for reverting this article too eagerly, so I'm raising it here to see if there are any particular objections. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Without some explanatory prose, and/or other compelling reason that makes the code sample integral and useful to an article, the code sample should not, in general, be included in the article. N2e (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief (see Wiki AVL Tree discussion) the nodes in an AVL Tree have exactly four states (and no more). The depth of subtrees is not calculated. Rather, one of the states found at State is applicable. The state never goes outside the enum State - not even temporarily - as stated in the AVL discussion in Wiki.

Moreover, the nodes for AVL Trees are non-generic even though the Tree class itself is generic. See Node for the Java node definition. The fact that the nodes are non-generic means that all the balancing algorithms are also non-generic. This precludes code bloat.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.116 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) 

Hi, Could somebody from the assessment team (great project, btw) have a look at Keystroke-level model and update the quality/importance class? Students of my course did a more or less complete rewrite of the article last year, which (imho) improved it quite a bit. As I was involved in the writing of the article, I would prefer not to do the reassessment myself. All the Best -- Raphman (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with the Computer science article assessment process take a look at the article on Vitalik Buterin? It's still listed as a stub after a couple of years, but seems to meet at least "Start", or possibly "C", on the article quality level in your assessment criteria. Thanks. N2e (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the stub tag. It was already listed as Start class in all its talk page assessments. I don't think it's C-class yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Super. Just happy to have someone else evaluate it and make the call. An editor has proposed a merge of that article (the BLP on Buterin) into an article that is about one of the major projects that Buterin is involved with (Ethereum), and based a part of their rationale on the fact that the article was a stub.

If others would like to weigh in on the Merge proposal, just go to either of the articles and click "Discuss" on the merge tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion related to (and linked from) the disambiguation page. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The usage and topic of monkey test and Monkey testing is under discussion, see talk:monkey test -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In the article about Activation function, the plot for the Parameteric Rectified Linear Unit (PReLU) seems to be wrong. The plot shows f(x) = x for x < 0 and f(x) = alpha * x for x >= 0, but it is defined the opposite way. --Audiofeature (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

also compare to figure 1 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01852 --Audiofeature (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. If you look closely at the plot , you will see a unit xy grid with x>=0 of unit slope and x<0 of other slope, as expected. By the way, issues with details of particular articles are usually discussed on the article's talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated OpenBSD for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The article on the Intelligent Water Drops algorithm is badly written, from both the perspectives of information content and style/grammar. What's a "soil?" Having read the article, I have no idea how the algorithm works, why I'd want to use it, or how to implement it. There is no talk page; should one be added, with this project being identified as the owner? Ma^t_chups 19:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is one of several "nature inspired" metaheuristics that are being aggressively spammed on Wikipedia by a number of academics. (They are often not only bad articles, but also bad science, see "Metaheuristics—the metaphor exposed".) It should very likely be deleted. —Ruud 19:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: This bot skips any article with conflicting classes from different WikiProjects, such as a B from one and a C from another, so it will simply fill in unassessed articles with high accuracy. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• After a few days, there appears to be some support and no opposition to opting in. You may want to consider listing this project at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess to opt-in. I'm unfollowing this project page, so please ping me if anyone has any questions that require the bot operator's response. ~ Rob^Talk 17:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I am a Museum Studies Graduate Student currently working at the Living Computer Museum in Seattle, Washington. I am working with staff members and with the collections/library database to expand/create articles about vintage computing, retro computing, and computer science that pertain to the items and knowledge here at the museum. If anyone would like to help edit these pages, or be interested in an edit-a-thon, or just want some more information on what we hope to accomplish please message me on my talk page! -- MBlairMartin (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)