Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. 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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

See proposal on infobox talk page:

This proposal was made, and not done previously: Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 3#Source Code Repository Field. I'd like to revive the change, which I have commenced through opportunity for discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, as well as with a specific diff of the proposed edit.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsenate (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 May 2013‎ (UTC)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk: Artificial intelligence concerning an issue about the wording of the lede of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 3 October 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)

Category:Laplets, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging into Category:Microsoft Surface. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

48 bits codification for Ethernet Frame should be added.

What is the scope of Category:C programming language family and the related List of C-based programming languages? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_4#Category:Rendering_APIs which is still open from August. – Fayenatic London 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The meaning and usage of "software package" is under discussion, see talk:Package (package management system) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 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)

The article entitled Code V does not have sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable and merit inclusion. In the edit history, an editor recommended merging the article to the company that markets this product - Synopsys.

But, I don't really see a place for it in that article. This is because doing so would seem to be promoting a trivial subject by giving Code V its own section, when compared to the notable material already in "Synopsys" article. It doesn't fit with the tone of that article.

So, I am inclined to AFD the "Code V" article. However, I am looking for alternate opinions or solutions, so that is why I am posting this here. Thanks in advance.

I am also posting this on the WikiProject Physics Talk Page. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am now thinking a good solution is to remove the content and make it a redirect. I think this is what the other editor actually recommended, not a merge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• My comment from WPPHYSICS: his should be a disambiguation page. "Code V" is used in many different fields and subjects outside of physics. I would move the current page to Synopsys Code V, and then redirect it, to clear the edit history. Then rewrite "Code V" into a disambiguation page. (for instance: ATC code V , [1] , etc ) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't see any reason not to merge. I would create a section Synopsys § Products and drop this material there with {{expand section|other products|date=August 2014}} on top of it. Then I would disambiguate Code V per IP and assume the issue resolved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think both these suggestions are good and thanks to both of you for contributing. It did not occur to me to make a new section entitled "Synopsys products", nor did it occur to me to make a disambiguation page. I guess this is why it is best to confer with others.

Now that the page has been renamed, I agree with the merge, which would create a redirect. This would then leave the "Code V" main-space name available for changing to a disambiguation page. Can we all agree to this? Should we wait a few more days for more comments? I think a good solution has been found. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question - Why should we clear the edit history? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If the disambiguation page is subsequently moved to "Code V (disambiguation)" it would be inappropriate to have Synonpsys' in the edit history, so moving the edit history to a topic specific title for the particular topic would keep the edit history clear so that those traversing through it to determine why a disambiguation page would not have an article in its history to confuse the meaning of the disambiguation page's history. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks - this makes sense to me. I guess this can wait a couple more days to see if anyone else comments. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There a bunch of independent competing products that have their own articles (see Category:Optical software). I'm not trying to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, just pointing out that any action should be considered in a larger context of how this area is covered on WP - likely the whole area needs work. I personally would leave this article alone. At most I would give it a {{notability}} tag but won't here because notability research on a product that has apparently been around since 1975 is not easy to do well. If you're looking for merges to do or articles that deserve deletion, we have barrels of those at the WP:ORPHANAGE. ~KvnG 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm wondering if someone could help me with getting some edits applied to this page: [[2]] I represent the current Phoenix Labs (we're an independent video game developer based in Canada) and we have all legal rights to the company name, but I am unsure as to how to apply edits to this page as the former Phoenix Labs should likely be kept as either a disambiguation or a "Phoenix Labs (former)"

Would someone be willing to assist me with getting our presence properly added to this wikipedia entry?

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

" Phoenix Labs is a Canadian-based, independent video game developer founded 2014 by video game veterans Jesse Houston, Robin Mayne and Sean Bender. They are focused on highly connected, cooperative gameplay experiences that feature strong experiential narratives (1).

(1) - http://www.phxlabs.ca/press "

Our logo is also directly available on the site. Thanks so much for your help. Let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Jessie Gagnon, Writer + Communications, Phoenix Labs http://www.phxlabs.ca/

 Not done I would not modify the Phoenix Labs page, as that refers to something completely different from your company, whether or not you "own the name" (meaningless), unless you purchased the company referred to by Phoenix Labs. It would certainly be inappropriate to move the current page to Phoenix Labs (former), as that is 1.) not descriptive and 2.) probably not even accurate. I'm personally not convinced that either company is notable under WP:GNG. If the other company is deleted as non-notable and is defunct, I doubt it will ever become notable, whereas your company may well become notable if it ends up meeting the general notability guidelines. In that case, your company's page will likely be located at Phoenix Labs. If both are notable, then we'd probably put your page at Phoenix Labs (video game studio) with a hatnote on the current page. If your page is the much more popular search term, then we'd probably want to switch them around per WP:2DAB.

Honestly, best of luck with your company. If you are interested in helping Wikipedia's coverage of your company in the future, keeping a list of press coverage you get would probably be very useful to future editors when they are looking for citations (either to prove notability or to verify factual statements). Independent, secondary sources are crucial to Wikipedia's verifiability. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, There are currently some job openings in a few of the WMF's Engineering teams, that I thought might be of interest to someone here, or you might know someone to nudge. Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to ask for help with this, but I've been helping an editor (@Drcarver:) with an article concerning CoSign by ARX. He's been pretty diligent about looking for sources but I'm not entirely certain about everything. I figured that it'd be best to get someone a little more savvy with computers and digital technology as a whole to take a look over the article and see what they think. Anyone up for it? You can find the article at User:Drcarver/CoSign by ARX. Do any of you think that this is ready for the mainspace? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I found this article on UIDH, a tracking bug insterted to HTTP headers by internet providers like Verizon. Can you make an article on it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely this edit is too promotional, and reads like a blatant advertisement? --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I created this stub, and people are looking at the article (60hitsperday or so). does anyone want to tackle expanding it? i dont seem to have the drive to do that, and i dont normally write computer articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done a major cleanup of the article (diff), let me know of any conerns. Thank you! Posted on article talk page also. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:45, 4 November 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)

• Thanks for the notice, I commented there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, computer experts! Is Draft:Newline delimited JSON a notable topic? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Looks like nothing of any note uses it. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick response! --Cerebellum (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Is this a hoax? Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I plan to expand the Arch Linux ARM article, which is currently a stub. Linux o'Linus (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The redirect Unicode compat-aliases has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 8#Unicode compat-aliases}}. The discussion would benefit from input by those who are familiar with computer programming and related jargon. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows X. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2014 (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)

1. Category:Streisand effect
2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect

Category:Streisand effect has been nominated for deletion, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect.

Feel free to participate there.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone would care to take a pass at Decoupled architecture, it's currently the oldest article in all of Wikipedia tagged "too technical" (since November 2007). I think it would be best addressed by merging it into Out-of-order execution, which actually has more explanation and context. But of course any improvements you see fit would be appreciated. Thanks, Beland (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In most cases, the most popular model of a given DEC terminal is the "base model", like the VT220 or 320. But in the case of their last series, it appears the 520 or 525 were the most common examples, far more so than the almost unknown 510. So, what should I name this article? It's currently under 525, is everyone OK with that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this whole area is calling out for a WP:SUMMARY article. {{DEC video terminals}} and wikilinks between articles is what is currently holding this together. There seems to be inconsistent titling of the articles in this series. Some are titled by the first in the series. Others are titled by the most popular or recognizable model in the series. I think WP:TITLE asks us to go with the latter so I would support a move of VT520 to VT525. ~KvnG 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best place to do it, but I'd like to draw attention to the split proposal for the TRS-80 article.

To put it briefly; the proposed split was between one article covering the original TRS-80 Model I/III/IV architecture (which was technically entirely unrelated to many later "TRS-80s" such as the Color Computer), and an "umbrella" article covering all uses of the name.

I proposed this a while back, but there was neither sufficient response nor a clear enough consensus either way to make a definite decision before the notice was taken off the front page.

I understand and agree with that- such things can't remain there forever- but it does mean that discussion has died down. If you have any opinions on it, please feel free to add them at that page! Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done some re-write work at Atomic broadcast, but it could use some more work on the technical end of things, which I don't understand well enough. I'd appreciate if a smart computer science guy could help it out. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we get some more Unix-tinted eyes over recent edits here please. It has even had the "all objects are either files or file systems" principles statement (sourced) removed, then removed again. There seems to be a lot of "erosion" around Plan 9 articles of late. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been contributing to Software & Computing related articles for a long time. I would like to get started in rating articles. I'm fairly unbaised in my approach which is why I usually cleanup, wikify, copy-write paras, rm advert-statements, neaten up articles, improve sections, reorder sections, and so on. I think I would be a good examiner, and I'm sure there are heaps of unrated articles or articles that could be re-rated.

I spoke to @SuperHamster: about this and he/she said that my ratings seem "solid", but I'd like to write here to (a) verify if my ratings are fine, (b) learn how to rate articles properly (yes I've read the quality assessment scale) and (c) find the list of unrated articles so I can do my thing. Copied below is the excerpt of the discussion.

Also, can I just go thru this to-do-list and rate articles based on the criteria? Is there some training or person I should confirm ratings with before committing? Whats the proper way to do this?

"Can I change page ratings as per this guide or do I have to ask? MPLAB devices is at least C if not B. MPLAB is Start, Flare3D/Away3D is C, Adobe Flash Player, Adobe AIR, SpeedTree are C or even B. PIC microcontroller is C. The rest are mostly correctly rated as Start. Am I right?"

Wonderfl ^(reply) 06:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wonderfl Oop, my bad! I'd say those are pretty solid ratings - I'm not too experienced with quality ratings (especially since I'm not a member of those particular WikiProjects), but looking at the criteria, those all seem sitting. And thanks for your interest! The more we can sort articles into their respective WikiProjects, the better. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there standards for Computing articles equivalent to having an article on Notability (computing)? How do I tell if a topic is notable? I ask because I am looking at Draft:Selmer (template engine) at Articles for Review. The article has no independent references. Looking at articles in Category:Template engines, independent references do not seem to be a requirement. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A template engine is a type of software and we do have a software-specific essay, Wikipedia:Notability (software). But in general the notability guidelines for software are the usual guidelines: there should be multiple in depth reliable sources available for the topic. The RS are not required to be cited in an article for a topic to be notable, just available. I'm not sure how you would determine notability requirements from a category. Articles in a category could be in any state from stubs to FAs. Of the templating engines I know, ASP.NET is highly notable, with many books and articles written about it, and Apache Velocity and Template Toolkit are very likely notable, too. --Mark viking (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. New editors who write articles tend to look at existing articles in the category for help on how to write, then become confused when we ask for references at Articles for Creation. We do search for and add references ourselves, and keep around old draft articles with good content long after their editors have given up, in hopes of getting them into Wikipedia someday. But with a backlog of 1600+ articles waiting review, we need to see references in the articles.

I've added to the appeal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software) that this become a guideline so it can be listed at Wikipedia:Notability with the other topic-specific guidelines. Makes our job at Articles for Creation easier. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The name of this article is under discussion, see talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It was proposed back in 2010 that the Interix article be merged into Windows Services for UNIX. Discussion ended mid-2011 with a consensus for no merge, but was never closed, leading a different editor (uninvolved in the original discussion) to reopen discussion. I'd like some more uninvolved editors to take a look at the articles and participate in the merger discussion so we can establish whether or not consensus has changed in the past three and a half years. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:12, 14 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)

I'd be grateful for anyone who can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOTgreal; it's been tagged for notability for 7 years. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find out how many nonfiction quizzes are in the Accelerated Reader program. I can't find this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.68.137 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Datasource article should be Moved to one for Data Source with links to it automatically from the alternative spelling "datasource". This also clarifies such notation as "DataSource" Tearaway (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All interested editors are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne). The subject is wanting in reliable, independent sources. Please focus on policy and guidelines rather than any "gut feelings" of the subject. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

List of C-family programming languages has grown absurdly long, mostly due to lack of sourcing and ambiguity regarding what puts a language in the C family. At Talk:List of C-family programming languages I am proposing that we limit the scope of the list to languages explicitly derived from the C standard. Please give your input. Sizeofint (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created new Draft article State Encoding for Low Power which talks about the recent FSM design trend moving towards low power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:State_Encoding_for_Low_Power. Please can you review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkd1205 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I have accepted it. It seems to be related to DFA minimization and Finite-state_machine#Optimization so I have created some links. ~Kvng (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Call_stack_layout.svg in Call stack has a strange piece of text on the left. 185.19.20.132 (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with Chrome or IE. What browser are you using? ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is normal now after User:Offnfopt updated picture. 185.19.20.132 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I work for a new cyber security start up and am looking to get some general information about our company on Wikipedia.

Obviously I cannot write it due to conflict of interest so I am hoping someone else can put together a quick company page.

Company: Red Canary, Inc. Type: Private Industry: Information Security Founded: February, 2014 Co-founders: Brian Beyer, Chris Rothe, Keith McCammon, Jason Garman Headquarters: Denver, CO Website: https://www.redcanary.co/

We would best fit into the Computer security companies section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_security_companies

Articles that explain Red Canary's offering: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/red-canary-closes-2-5-152100860.html http://pando.com/2015/03/26/red-canary-mixes-technology-and-human-intuition-to-help-companies-fight-cyber-threats/ http://www.networkworld.com/article/2902956/security0/startup-takes-the-effort-out-of-endpoint-detection-and-response.html http://www.builtincolorado.com/2015/03/27/red-canary-secures-25m-helps-customers-identify-actual-cyber-threats

75.166.52.208 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)cory@redcanary.co

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Data comparison#Article title Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all! I've been working on behalf of Citrix for the past few months to suggest improvements to their article. Thus far, I've worked with editors to update the History and Products sections and the infobox. I posted a note recently on the Talk page seeking assistance with adding a new Operations section to the article, but haven't had a response. I was thinking members of this WikiProject might be interested in taking a look. I do not directly edit the article due to my COI, so I'd appreciate it if another editor could review my suggested draft and move it to the live article if they agree with the changes. I'll be watching the Talk page and can respond to any comments or questions editors may have there. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for MacBook to be moved to MacBook (2011 and earlier). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hole punching to be moved to NAT hole punching. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Transmission (BitTorrent client) to be moved to Transmission (software). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Li Gong to be moved to Li Gong (computer scientist). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Surface (first generation) to be moved to Surface RT. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Picture Manager doesn't run in Mac OS X as is written in the "Operating system support" table.

Hi.

There is a move request at Talk:Virtual disk § Requested move 11 July 2015, which I believe concerns this project. (It is not automatically listed in WP:COMP/AA.) Participants are welcome.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Information Age, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 03 August 2015. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by North America1000 23:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Can you guys do anything to improve this article? --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, My name is David Hamilton and our public relations agency represents Active Power , a global leader in flywheel energy and power technology for mission critical applications. Given our relationship with Active Power, it would be a conflict of interest for us to create a Wikipedia article on their behalf, but with over 4,000 uninterruptible power supply (UPS) deployments worldwide, we feel that Active Power is relevant and notable enough to deserve an entry.

I am requesting that an independent editor create the article. Below is the information I provided on the Requested Articles page here on Wikipedia that includes links to several independent third-party sources.

Active Power, designs, manufactures, sells, and services flywheel-based uninterruptible power supply (UPS) products that use kinetic energy to provide short-term power as an alternative to conventional battery-based UPS products. The company also designs and manufactures modular infrastructure solutions that integrate critical power components into a pre-packaged, purpose built enclosure that can include Active Power’s UPS products as a component. Customers include Verizon Terremark, Caterpillar, HP, Heineken, and Capgemini. Company website Mentions from third parties: DataCentre Solutions , Datacenter Dynamics , Austin Business Journal , Mission Critical Magazine , Electrical Construction and Maintenance , Data Center Knowledge , Austin Business Journal , Austin Business Journal . Thank you for any assistance you can provide! BBGdavidhamilton (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

With the coverage links you've provided, the company does appear to meet notability requirements for companies. If you don't find an independent editor to write the article for you, you might consider writing a bare-bones article yourself using the Articles for creation process. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to create a navigation template for floating point formats, containing such articles as single-precision floating-point format? It seems to be more reasonable than having a herd of "see also" links in each of the articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have created Category:Floating point types and improved {{Data types}} to improve navigation. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just proposed a YouTube Wikiproject that would cover any Articles relevant to YouTube People, Culture, Organisations and Business

I would love to get lots of support for this --- :D Derry Adama (talk)

I've created a new article on the Free Speech Flag.

If anyone's got ideas for possible additional sources, comments are welcome, at Talk:Free Speech Flag.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 September 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)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone here might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Jenkins hash function#Notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Free Speech Flag.

— Cirt (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewsBank 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/NewsBank 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. — Cirt (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! I have made a new WikiProject proposal that focuses on the connected home! If you are interested of learning more about the project, joining or discussion you can visit the project page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Connected_Home.

Daylen (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Deep Web is under discussion, see talk:Dark Web -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Are "computer program" and "app" synonymous? Have your say at Talk:Computer program. —Ruud 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: ping! —Ruud 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I've commented over there in the Talk:Computer program § Are Computer Program and App synonyms? (redux) discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, articles must be neutrally written. In my opinion, this includes that we should not use particular buzzwords within them. Although cloud computing is a notable concept, it, in most cases, refers simply to online storage services that use such platforms, or the storage of synchronized data on remote servers.

I think we should look at how all our computing-related articles use terminology referencing "the cloud" and modify them approriately. For instance, a few articles refer to storing information "in the cloud"; this is a buzzword and should be replaced by a less ambiguous term such as "on a remote server". ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

You've certainly spotted a problem. It is certainly as bad as "consumerization", especially when used carelessly. A bad example (or a good example for our purpose) is Comparison of file synchronization software. (Permanent link) It says "online cloud storage"; this means a cloud storage that is on the Internet. (This rarely happens.) But wait! That's not what the field means. It means what the vendor provides an associated file hosting service as well. So, "online storage" would have sufficed. Another problem is with "Sync to cloud". Again, the same thing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more to cloud storage than a server. Online storage is a disambiguation page so not a good target. Perhaps there's a less buzzarific term we could be using but what's described in the Cloud storage article is the best information we have on generalized remote storage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. I was proposing online file storage article, using [[online file storage|online storage]] syntax because "file" is implied by the context. I though I am being obvious because the link redirects to file hosting service which I linked. I sometimes forget that not everyone has Popups enabled. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:COMPUTING and WP:ENGINEERING.
2. I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Computing and Engineering, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Engineering and technology.
3. I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
4. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The usage, topic, and naming of Cyberweapon is under discussion, see talk:cyberweapon -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Shelving buffer & Re-order buffer seem to be talking about basically the same thing, using terminology from different eras or institutions. Perhaps it would be good to merge them into a single article that explains how one relates to the other. Another possibility is that I have misunderstood, in which case it would be good to clarify the meaning of each article, to help out the reader as ignorant as I.--Wcoole (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added banners. Please continue discussion at Talk:Re-order_buffer#Shelving_buffer. ~Kvng (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:UML Partners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As the article is stated as within the scope of this project and even marked as Mid-importance I also ask my question in here too. I'm just wondering, I may not know much about user provisioning, I may know a little about SCCM doing software distribution but I lack seeing an article software provisioning about that topic or any other software management (tool) that - who knows - may do more than just distribution. Is user provisioning automation just that more popular than software provisioning automation? --Alien4 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. We already have a provisioning article. That said, Wikipedia tries to avoid buzzword to whatever extent possible; Microsoft loves to create and use new buzzwords to the extent possible. SCCM is a one-of-a-kind management tool. There are tools that sufficiently similar, the same buzzwords do not describe them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion over at Talk:Hamilton C shell#Discussion requested that involves a lot of issues that are common to software-related articles on Wikipedia. Everyone's input is welcome. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

E.g., Bash (Unix shell)#Keyboard shortcuts. I removed these because I considered this the most obvious WP:NOTMANUAL violation that I've ever seen, but my edit got reverted. This is not about the you, which can easily be fixed, but about listing these things at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Qwertyus. I am sure you are right, unless the article is about a list of shortcuts that have gained notability or list of shortcuts about a key that has an article and the list is there to make a point that is otherwise undeliverable.

You had all the rights to delete the list.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: care to comment on the article talk page? Now we're having this discussion in two places (which is my fault, sorry for that; same request of other editors who'd like to comment). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On a resolution of 1280x800 (MBP 13'), having to scroll up and down with large tables ("Specifications and Configurations" in this article) just to fetch a data point and then match it to its label is not fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.162.196 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Signpost (Wikipedia) 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/The Signpost (Wikipedia) 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. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Line Delimited JSON purports to about "a standard for delimiting JSON in stream protocols". However, no accepted standard exists, and instead the article defines its own, admitting its originality. It does cite two self-published attempts at such a standard, but its talk page starts off

If anyone is interested in developing a standard for Line Delimited JSON, please comment here. Suggestions for a better names and comments on the currently minimal specification would be gratefully received.

I put the page up for deletion as blatant OR, but got no response whatsoever. Does nobody care about this? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Qwertyus

I think you should have come here sooner. Try PROD, citing "no response in AfD" as a ground for PROD. If you received a response, however, you can re-open an AfD. At least, I will come. Also, be careful to give very good incentives for deletion, like with you wrote above. Generally speaking, in the event that one of your AfD didn't receive any response and got relisted once, start popularalizing it by posting participation request in WikiProjects and inviting neutral but interested parties; in this case, I could be a good candidate as I have never edited that article before.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Codename Lisa. I thought PROD was impossible after AfD, though? Am I allowed to open a new AfD so quickly after the previous one was closed? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus: Actually, talk to the closing admin first; ask if he would be open to overturning "no consensus" to a WP:SOFTDEL. If that failed with no satisfactory reason, i.e. "Just because", do the conversion thing. Make it clear that you are converting a null AfD per WP:SOFTDEL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I failed to see the WP:NPASR note at the top of the AfD. Renominated. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Since March 2010 it has been proposed that Anti-worm should be merged with Helpful worm. Request the regular users of this task force to do the needful to close the 5 year old pending issue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Would anyone be willing to help find sources for Markus Hess? Please see my comments at Talk:Markus Hess#Sources, regarding the risk of circular referencing due to the fact that some recent online sources appear to have drawn on an unreferenced previous version of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I work at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, and I'm trying to merge Prefetch buffer to per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prefetch buffer. However, I'm having trouble since I don't know much about the topic and want to avoid giving undue weight to the topic of prefetch buffers. Would it be appropriate to merge the entire contents of the article, as a new section, or should I keep only a sentence or two? --Cerebellum (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cerebellum

My advice is: Take it easy. Just read both, copy the contents of Prefetch buffer into dynamic random access memory under a new level 2 section (== ==) and edit the contents so that they look like an integral part of the article. As for the rest, editors watching that article will take care of it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic random-access memory seems like an inappropriate target for a merge to me. Synchronous dynamic random-access memory might make a little more sense, but that whole AfD seems to have received too little attention, so I would take its outcome with a grain of salt. Merging two articles by doing a copy-and-paste job and without understanding the contents of either is nearly always a bad idea, though. —Ruud 16:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! AFAIK, the Prefetch buffer article is slightly skewed. Please have a look at the functional diagram of DDR2 (figure 1 in the PDF, on page 2), and you'll see that there are no additional buffers that would be called "prefetch buffers". There are I/O registers, of course, but they are part of the usual DRAM design that involves no data prefetching. The article's description of data prefetching either describes a DRAM design that isn't mainstream, or seems to be confused with a feature of memory controllers that enables data prefetching from DRAM into L1 and L2 CPU caches as an attempt toward performance improvements by exploiting spatial locality of data, and, consequently, the row buffer locality that hinges on already opened rows; please see a Xeon Phi description and a DRAM controller design for more details. The only clear mentioning of a prefetch register I've found is this one, but the section 55.6 of the book is rather terse and quite confusing in explaining the illustrations. (To make it worse, the book has been scanned upside-down. Go figure. :)

With all that in mind, IMHO the article shouldn't have been called "Prefect buffer" in the first place; instead, "DDR SDRAM prefetch architecture" would have been much more appropriate. We might want to merge the content into our Double data rate article, which already has the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section that deals with the internal and external clock frequencies, and the description of prefetch architecture should fit there very well. Another option, which might be even better, would be to merge the content into our Synchronous dynamic random-access memory article, and to provide a brief summary in the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section. At the same time, merged content should be edited to match the description of DDR SDRAM prefetch architecture, as that's what we have references for.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at the first versions of the article the author is describing the kn-prefetch architecture and later edits seems to have made the article a bit more confused. If we want to describe this, then Synchronous dynamic random-access memory would be the right place, as it already covers all the other technical intricacies of SDRAM. The title "Prefetch buffer" just seems to be a misnomer, so I don't think we even want to keep this as a redirect. But what to do with the contents? Is there anything worth salvaging, or should it just be deleted, so we can start over? —Ruud 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Prefetch buffer shouldn't be kept as a redirect once the merger is complete. I'd say that about 20 to 25% of the content is salvageable, so IMHO it would be better not to start from a blank canvas. Agreed about the Synchronous dynamic random-access memory article as the destination, but we should also add a brief summary to the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section – that would round it up nicely. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for the input! Sorry for the delay but I just now performed the merge, with Synchronous dynamic random-access memory as the target. I did not add anything to double data rate because I was not sure how to summarize the content. Also, even if prefetch buffer is not a good redirect, we have to keep it for attribution purposes. Please take a look at the SDRAM article and if things are now hopelessly confused feel free to revert so I can try again. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: IMHO, there is some room for improvement in the Synchronous dynamic random-access memory § DDR SDRAM prefetch architecture section, but I'd suggest that you add a few reliable sources first, which are required anyway, and we'll start from there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose the addition of Category: Systems Network Architecture to be used for all SNA devices and protocols. I'm not sure where this would fit, it looks like not as a subcategory of Network architecture. Peter Flass (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Request received to merge articles: MIME and Mailcap into Media type; dated July 2015; Discussion at Talk:Media type § Mergers proposed GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This one is a bit tricky. Recently an editor (@Jpaulm:) came to WP:REFUND to request restoration of the article John Paul Morrison, with the assertion that it was deleted by a vandal and that his userpage was also gone. A look shows that his userpage was not deleted and that he seems to be referring to the deletion of John Paul Morrison, which was deleted as spam by @JzG:. @Guy Macon: is also involved in this.

The problem here is that ultimately this account appears to be used by Morrison himself, although that is in question given that at one point the editor refers to Morrison in the third person. This poses a strong conflict of interest and I've openly told him that it would not be a good idea for him to edit the article directly. He was told this in the past, but has since made direct edits to the (now deleted) article and to Flow-based programming, which Morrison created/pioneered. This appears to be the main/sole thing that Morrison is notable for.

What I need help with here is essentially to see if Morrison would warrant his own article outside of the main one for flow-based programming and if so, then he needs someone unaffiliated to create and edit the page. I'm concerned that there is some WP:IDHT going on here, given that Jpaulm was told to seek outside help in the past and in the past 24 hours, but has followed none of the advice. The reason I mention the background to this is that I'm not entirely sure how helpful Jpaulm will be here and I'm mildly debating blocking him for the comment that gives off the impression that he's not Morrison himself. That there's also concerns about him using Wikipedia to promote himself (as he'd certainly benefit from having a separate article from the flow-based programming entry) doesn't help matters either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Morrison has been engaging in assiduous self-promotion on Wikipedia for a long time. Frankly, I do not trust his word on this and I think the best thing is to leave it until someone provably independent comes along with a neutral article. And I don't mind betting that the first user to try this will turn out to be a sockpuppet. Yes, I am a nasty suspicious bastard, but this cynicism is based on long experience. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I ended up blocking them. Either he's Morrison and making promotional edits or he's someone who isn't Morrison and making promotional edits. That they didn't do any of the things I asked them to do really didn't make them look good. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79: Hi. What I am going to say is not related to this subject; but I think it is imperative that you learn the difference between {{U}} and {{Ping}} templates, and know when to use them. Being an admin, expectations are a little bit higher. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• I did want to ping the involved people to the conversation so they could take part in things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that ping was the correct choice here. Also the user who goes by "Guy" (actual user name JzG) is not me. I never omit the "Macon" so as to avoid confusion. Finally, I need a brief reminder as to how I am involved here. I can't find any interaction between me and Jpaulm -- likely because I am not an admin and cannot see deleted pages, but maybe I am just looking in the wrong places. I will say that I have seen many administrative actions by Tokyogirl79 and by JzG/Guy and hold both in high regard. I would be shocked if either one got this one wrong. If anyone wants my opinion of the deleted page, please drop me a note on my talk page and post a copy in my userspace, which I will save to my hard disk and delete from Wikipedia as soon as I see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Service Management, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm writing to point editors to a discussion I started about merging the GoToMyPC and GoToMyPC Pro articles. The two entries are nearly identical and there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the Pro version as a standalone product. I think it makes sense to merge the two, but I'd like to hear from others. As a disclosure, I have a financial conflict of interest and I am making this request on behalf of Citrix Systems, the maker of GoToMyPC. I will not be making any changes to the articles myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that this merge has been completed. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/sidebar mentions Internet among descendant projects, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet#Parents mentions Computing.

Is it correct to add a page to multiple projects, even if they are descendants of one another? That looks like an error to me, see e.g. Talk:Email client, where "Computing" occurs twice. So, I moved Email box from Computing to Internet, and will continue to do so unless someone tells me not to. ale (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to get {{WikiProject Computing}} updated with parameters for all descendent projects. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Email is perhaps a bad example, since internet email protocols are only a subset of all email. I believe email should go back to computing. Peter Flass (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm... in fact, X.400 is in {{WikiProject Computing}} as well as in its descendant {{WikiProject Telecommunications}}, so perhaps I should have just added {{WikiProject Internet}} without removing the existing claim. Although I've been registered at Wikipedia for a decade, I never worked on specific projects before, and still don't have quite grasped what that entails. By your logic, any page belonging to a given project should also belong to all of its parent projects, not to mention that internet email is a form of telecommunication too. But what practical difference does project affiliation bring about? For the time being, I got two replies here and none at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet#What about the email?
ale (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I made modifications to Dew computing, and it was reverted by an editor. At the beginning, the comment was 'spam'; later, the comment was COI. I asked questions and discussed with related editors, and it turned out that the problem was my ID: Ywangupeica. It showed that I am the author of some papers I cited.

I read Wikipedia’s rules related to “Conflict of Interest”, and found that the way to determine whether an author has “Conflict of Interest” is a Trust Test: “[W]ould relevant others … [readers, editors, admins, arbitration committee, Wikimedia Foundation] … trust my judgment if they knew I was in this situation?” I think I have passed this Trust Test. If readers knew I am one of the authors in this area, they will still trust this article because all the facts I wrote can be verified online, and I wrote the article in a neutral way. The fact that I used an ID that could be linked to me easily is also an indication that I did not intent to write in a biased way.

My explanations were all ignored and the editor reverted the article three times back to Kkovacic00’s version (after minor changes by editor BG19bot) even another editor did not agree. Please comparing these two versions, which one is biased? which one is more informative? which one should be used in Wikipedia?

This COI problem is only because the author/reviser was me. If someone else makes such changes, everything should be fine. I ask the experts in this project to evaluate the history of this article, to judge which version should be used, and to make necessary changes. Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

After I posted my opinion about the editor's reverting, few hours after, this editor nominated deletion of this article without point out the reasons. This is not a fair and rational action. This reaction to my post is full of personal power over me. I ask other editors to check this situation. Ywangupeica (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud-dew architecture
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dew computing

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editors: When you judge this article, please notice one of the previous versions is significantly different from the current one. This is because of the reverting. The following version describes the definition and history, provides more citation and other information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129. Ywangupeica (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Disclaimer₁: I am obviously not a web programmer.)
(Disclaimer₂: If this page is the wrong place for this topic, please advise me where to post it.)

The External Links for Callahan's Crosstime Saloon include

Virtual Callahan's Place on Usenet news

which links to news:alt.callahans When I click on the link, my browser says

The address wasn't understood

Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because one of the following protocols (news) isn't associated with any program or is not allowed in this context.

You might need to install other software to open this address.

Typing news://alt.callahans (or clicking on it in a preview of this page) in my address bar gives the same result.

The URLs don't work for me in Chrome either. Is this a dead link? It's listed on Callahan's Place (The Semi-Official All-Callahanian Web Page), but that hasn't been updated since February 8, 2014. Is the news scheme obsolete? News: and News:// both redirect to Network News Transfer Protocol, aka NNTP, but the article makes no mention of the prefix with or without slashes. Ditto for http: / http:// and HTML. Should they?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Would editors with relevant understanding care to take a look at Pokki and the last section of its talk page, where it was thought last year that some mention should be made in the article of potential security and performance problems, but reliable sources were lacking. An IP editor has recently got blocked for trying to warn the world that "Pokki is spyware". Their unsourced edits were rightly reverted, but in view of much adverse comment on forums, maybe the possible drawbacks should be mentioned in the article if appropriate sourcing can be found: Noyster (talk), 23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone from the project look at the recently created Buffer space (software development). It seems like an article that would be best redirected somewhere but I'm not quite sure where exactly! (Or is deletion the way forward?) In any case, help would be appreciated Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard this terminology before. The article is unreferenced. A web search doesn't immediately turn up anything. Buffer space is a pretty overloaded term so we can't expect too much from a web search. I'm dubious. As far as redirect targets, doesn't look like Data buffer is a good choice. I don't see any mention of buffer in Executable or Object file. I think deleting may be the best way forward. I've added a couple tags to help move that along. ~Kvng (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I agree that the article should be deleted as misleading and completely unreferenced. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All right then! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffer space (software development). Pichpich (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

We have probably dozens of articles covering various computer commands and utilities. Not infrequently these come up for deletion with WP:NOTMANUAL and notability concerns. I don't know what the answer is but I invite members of this project to a discussion on the latest to come up at WP:AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Id (Unix) ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I say we should not, in principle, have articles about individual commands unless significant coverage of their purpose or history is available. Where possible, I think we should merge these entries into (or replace them by) articles discussing broader concepts; e.g., Bg (Unix) and Fg (Unix) now both redirect to Job control (Unix), and the articles about id (Unix) and whoami should be replaced by an encyclopedic overview of the Unix security model. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that you see a future for the content in id (Unix) and given that Unix security model does not exist, would you support or oppose id (Unix) deletion at this time? Can we extrapolate this to all the other stand-alone articles about commands? ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kvng: I'm not convinced that the current content of that article is useful; "replace" does not necessarily mean "merge and redirect" since that would imply a promise to keep a list of commands in the broader articles and I'm not sure if exhaustive listings of commands are useful (I'm not particularly happy with the situation with fg and bg, which I'd much rather integrate into the prose of the article). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataLounge -- Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Warp speed Data Transfer needs help to demonstrate notability. There is a discussion about the issue at the WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#06:27:07, 23 February 2016 review of submission by Laurent Demailly, Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dodger67. I am very sorry to say that the article is hopeless. Most of it is written like an advertisement while sources 1 through 7 and 10 are worthless. Notability is the smallest problem. The article has literally no contents.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We have something interesting going on Talk:Stack_Overflow#Criticism. -- ChamithN (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

How can it be that XCB is listed as a widget toolkit? Shouldn't Wayland also be listed then? --146.140.3.24 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please join this discussion about Category:Open source philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an edit-a-thon going on this Sunday at American Chemical Society headquarters in Washington, D.C. on the topic of Computers in Chemistry. If you have any suggestions for articles to improve or create, please add them at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/ACS March 2016. You can also sign up to participate remotely yourself. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI that this article was used for a school assignment last semester, needs cleanup. valereee (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a question on Portal:Computer programming about the reversed direction of the logo. Please comment. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. In the process of researching an article recently brought to AfD, I found a couple old computing magazines that don't have articles. Maybe I'll get around to the rest of them later, but right now I'd like to work on an interesting one. It started life as a TI 99/4A enthusiast magazine named 99er, was renamed to 99er Home Computer, Home Computer Magazine, and finally Home Computer Journal. This is detailed a bit in this article at GameSetWatch. The first incarnation was announced in InfoWorld, and the publisher's problems with labor made local news here and here. There was also a little coverage in InfoWorld after the TI 99/4A ceased production. OK, so now that I've listed all my sources, what do you guys think? Is this notable? And, if so, under what name is it notable? Finally, anyone got ideas on where I can find sources about 1980s computer magazines? I've been hitting Google News Archive, Google Books, and archive.org with lots of searches, but they don't turn up much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Was it notable enough to get indexed in library catalogues (e.g. OCLC WorldCat)? That would most likely be a pass. Otherwise see if you can find enough source material to write a decent article. If you manage to do that, it's usually notable enough.

Lots of amateurs are also scanning and archiving these old computing history tidbits. So try some creative Google searches, or look at the larger archives like http://bitsavers.org. —Ruud 01:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. I found a few entries at WorldCat: 99'er Magazine, 99'er Home Computer Magazine, and Home Computer Magazine. I suppose that counts for something, but with five results per entry, DGG is likely to AfD it if he sees it. Hmmm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm posting here because I've been working on behalf of Citrix Systems to research and suggest improvements to the article for their ShareFile product. A few weeks ago, I posted a note on the Talk page with an updated draft for the article. My draft significantly condenses the material and trims out details that are either poorly sourced or extraneous. The ShareFile article seems to fall under the scope of this wikiproject, so I'm hoping someone here might be able to review it since I haven't had a response yet. Because of my COI, I will not be making any edits, but instead ask that other editors review my work and move it to the live article if they agree with the changes. I'll be watching the Talk page and can respond to any thoughts editors have. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:23, 13 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)

Hello all. I just retired the WikiProject Amiga after attempting to contact all of the listed active members. None replied and most have not been active for at least six months now. I would be willing to help out if there are any other people interested in continuing the project. Over the last week, I made a Portal to go with the project but I have not been able to get any feedback on it as the project seems dead. Anyway, I thought I would drop a notice as far as the current stats goes to see if anyone objects. H.dryad (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This project has been effective in improving Amiga coverage. R.I.P. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTPA. —Ruud 11:57, 11 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) 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, folks! I've created Search query as a disambiguation page, with Database query (which redirects to Database) and Web search query. Can someone create an article about the general concept? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:46, 16 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) 23:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I routinely fill in missing assessments manually in this manner and it would be helpful if it happened automatically. ~Kvng (talk) 20:43, 5 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 17:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

First post on wikipedia.

I was looking through the pages on project reality and the reality engine, and I noticed the information is quite sparse. I have a personal connection to these two projects, I am the son of the director of project reality, Jim Foran, who also directed the project that produced the reality engine.

as an example of relevance I have a link to the specifications of the reality engine which describes new methods of anti-aliasing ( in the early 1990s!), among other technological changes made to create the reality engine.

http://cva.stanford.edu/classes/cs99s/papers/akeley-reality-engine-graphics.pdf

I also have two articles referencing him and his relationship with both the reality engine and project reality:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sv1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HRUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5703%2C6374787

http://www.yoyow.com/marye/mtstories/nintendo.html

rather than just start editing, I wanted to open up a discussion thread about what information is worth adding to the relevant pages. I know that I have a subjective view on the topic so I wanted input from others. thank you. Ignus.flamebringer (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

great info, I'd be very interested to see it, I think it's all relevant in documenting the evolution of graphics hardware. I've been trying to rework the pages on texture mapping#Hardware implementations texture mapping#Rasterisation algorithms which cover some related stuff, but I'm working from memory of mid-1990s gamedev rather than 'citable' references, maybe you can improve these Fmadd (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased to provide it! I will head over to the talk page for it and post the resources I'm aware of. Should I also post a similar topic in the computer graphics project? There's some information I can contribute about both hardware and software / rasterization techniques. Ignus3 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm seeking opinions on whether the Citrix WinFrame entry should be merged into the XenApp article. My reasoning for this proposal is on the XenApp Talk page here. For those who don't know, I am working as a paid consultant on behalf of Citrix Systems to make suggestions to Citrix-related articles. Because of my COI, I refrain from editing any of the articles myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I have returned to point editors to the GoToMyPC Talk page, another Citrix-related article that I have been working on. I proposed a new draft a few weeks ago that I'd like for other editors to review. As stated before, I am working as a paid consultant on behalf of Citrix Systems as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I will not edit the article directly because of my COI and will only participate in Talk page discussions. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is now closed. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Humax Raiya Programming has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I find no evidence that this "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and therefore don't believe that it is notable.

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.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Home page, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

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)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have created this wiki page for sharing information on HPC tools. It has passed initial edit reviews but they (Robert McClenon suggested I contact this group for additional review. Can please have a look and if it is acceptable, please publish. Thank you. Smk-slab (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see some problems with this article:

• The tone is unencyclopedic in several places (the heading "Purpose of this page", "The following table was created based on the tools used within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) on its HPC systems. Not every tools is available on every DOE HPC system. Additions, deletions, and corrections are encouraged.")
• The taxonomy used in the article seems to be mostly an original invention instead of based on existing sources.
• The real meat of the article seems to be the section Table of HPC Tools and the rest just reads like unnecessarily verbose padding.

The only way I would see this being accepted as an article is to make it into a list:

• Rename it to List of high-performance computing software and make it clear this is a spin-out of Supercomputer#Software tools and message passing.
• Cut down on the fluff, unencyclopedic language, and make clear that the taxonomy is just a way to organize this particular list instead of some "novel contribution" that needs to be explained in-depth.
• On Wikipedia, lists of software should usually be comprised of software that already has an article on its own. Currently all the links are external links. Some of those can be changed to internal links. Those than cannot should either also have an article created about them (if they are very notable), be supported by some sources that explain their importance to the HPC field, or be trimmed from the list.

—Ruud 19:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide your very valid comments. I guess my head was stuck on the collaborative nature of wiki's and not enough on the encyclopedic intent of the site. I think the article can't be fixed. I will figure out how to delete the draft. --Smk-slab (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! While going through orphan articles I stumbled upon Agent network topology, which I can make no sense of. Any chance someone can take a look, clarify the article, or maybe even de-orphan it (you'll be my hero if you can do the latter!). Thanks a bunch!! Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I couldn't make head or tail out of it either. But I made very disturbing discovery. I was browsing this:

Classification of Intelligent Agent Network Topologies and a New Topological Description Language for Agent Networks (PDF). IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Vol. 228/2007. Springer Boston. 2007. pp. 21–31. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-44641-7. ISBN 978-0-387-44639-4.

When I encountered the following abstract that highly resembles the article lead. I have highlighted the differences:

Topological theory of intelligent agent networks provides crucial information about the structure of agent distribution over a network. Agent network topologies not only take agent distribution into consideration but also consider agent mobility and intelligence in a network. Current research in the agent network topology area adopts topological theory from the distributed system and computing network fields without considering mobility and intelligence aspects. Moreover, current agent network topology theory is not systematic and relies on graph-based methodology, which is inefficient in describing large-scale agent networks. In this paper, we systematically classify the agent network topologies and propose a new description language called Topological Description Language for Agent networks (TDLA), which incorporates the mobility and intelligence characteristics in an agent network.

Browsing the first revision, I clearly see that this whole article is an instance of copyright violation.

—Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I missed that. Thanks for your help!! Ajpolino (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Fibre Channel Ports at Articles for Creation and declined it as reading too much like a list for a catalog rather than an encyclopedic draft, and noted that it had no references and did not explain how fibre channel ports are used. User:Jcran1234 then posted to my talk page:

Hi, I am looking for guidance on how to continue. I started this work by addressing the issue that the port types in the Fibre Channel article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_Channel) had no citations which required finding a reliable source (the Fibre Channel standards) and then updating the definitions to that reliable source. I then thought that it might be better to put that list in a separate article and referencing it in the Fibre Channel article. If this is not realistic or proper, then I will update update the list in the Fibre Channel article with this updated information. Thoughts? For what it is worth, I am also planning to update the Fibre Channel Zoning article to use information from the IETF MIB for Zoning and the Fibre Channel standards (addressing the issue to cite to reliable sources and filling in gaps of missing information).

It looks to me as if this list of types of channel ports should be added to the existing article. The filling in of gaps in existing articles is also always appreciated. (The improvement of existing articles is no harder and sometimes less hard than the creation of new articles and is also important to Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Such content belongs to the already existing Fibre Channel article, there would be no reasons to split such information into a separate article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears the information is already present at Fibre_Channel#Ports. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions needed about this draft at AFC please. If you do not wish to do a complete AFC review please post your comments to the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Appears to have been accepted into mainspace by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. Could use some improvements and additional independent sources to establish a stronger notability case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hiya, I just created Light (web browser), it's still short and stubbish and I'm not sure how to add it to this project. Thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) (ETA: I've now figured out that you don't need permission to add those templates to article talk pages. Yay! Xmoogle (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

I removed some redundancy. {{WikiProject Free Software}} and {{WikiProject Software}} automatically include this project. I also removed {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}} and {{WikiProject Linux}} because the subject is not closely associated with those topics. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed Category:Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer ; with a grabbag of contents. Isn't this just pipelining/superpipelining? The platforms categorized are not related to each other. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone

Those who watch Internet Explorer, Firefox and Google Chrome articles may have noticed that I have implemented a new stacked layout for version information in {{Infobox web browser}}. This occurred on 31 May 2016 and I haven't had any complaint yet.

I intend to implement this in {{Infobox software}} eventually, so if anyone has any feedback, now would be a good time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Guy Harris: This might actually interest you, because it can be implemented in {{Infobox OS}} too. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The image scaling article was a bloated mess, mostly devoted to comparison galleries of images produced by a seemingly endless list of various fairly trivial algorithms. I've now de-merged the pixel art stuff into its own article, but too much of this article is still devoted to blow-by-blow comparisons of individual algorithms with inline images that takes up a lot of space to say very little. There is a good article to be written on image scaling, which is a subject with surprisingly deep ramifications into machine vision and the psychophysics of vision, but this isn't it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A Wikiversity page or WikiBooks book could be built from the comparisons -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add information to this article and edit it as you can. Thank you. --2601:285:101:A67A:88DB:4009:605E:A8E9 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

After reading Base64, the first two lines under the frame, and after also clicking on the link MIME content transfer encoding therein, and reading the first line under the heading and the word 'format', presented to me then, I wonder, am I justified in concluding that the consensus has been that the meaning of the technical term Base64, having become obsolete by the replacement of RFC 1341 by RFC 2045, could also be replaced? That the term was vacant for carrying a new meaning? Please DO correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly hope you will.

If we recycle the term in this way, future readers are going to have a hell of a time disambiguating the two. And that is not only going to confound future historians, but every individual of every new generation. Remember that the ontogenesis repeats the filogenesis, and that that goes on after leaving the womb: the newborn human still has to conquer language, etcetera. In school we relive the previous centuries with a bird's eye view.

That is not recycling, that is cannibalism of the worst kind (Chronos'). For the new meaning, definitely a new term should have been coined. – 86.89.133.166 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello :)

An RFC about the {{Infobox software}} is open at Template talk:Infobox software § Should we add a "source code repository" field to the infobox? Participants are welcome.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen that other museums have been tagged with the project box so I have added it to the Talk page of the Living Computer Museum. Is there a way to get a reassessment on the article as a whole? I have done extensive edits this summer that I believe to bring it above stub class. I currently work for the museum and do not want to be biased and asses the article. Thanks! MBlairMartin (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone at this project please review and comment on this draft, as to whether it should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It´s empty on normal editing and visual editing doesn´t work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.253.131 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I just tried and it worked for me. I made a simple addition to one of the citations and it showed up. Beware that in the source page, the only content of the reference section is <references /> since the sources should go into the body of the article using citations. If you do not understand the "citation" concept then maybe that is what needs to be reviewed? W Nowicki (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Years ago I owned an Atari 520STFM. I used to read ST magazines, ST User IIRC. After the ST, came the Mega ST1 (1MB RAM) and Mega ST2 (2MB RAM). Your pictures of the TT look like those. I can't remember if they used a later Motorola 68K series, but I think that it was just a 68000. One issue of the magazine that read had a big picture of a huge looking machine, which was called the Atari TT, which, it was explained within, had one to several Inmos T800's. The T800 was designed to be parallel, with four external buses, and was the fastest processor in the world when it was launched, giving about 10 MIPS and 1.5 MFLOPS. I have never heard of a machine called an ATW800. Edmund X Exxxz (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll mention in particular, that under debate is the option of having RFCs automatically-linking the title of such articles in those cases. AKA instead of something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

we could have (with autolinking), something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125.

without having to manually set the url to be "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc125". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi all

Please could members of this project go to Talk:IP forwarding and participate in the discussion there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks! The article All-in-One has been an orphan with no references for 7 years. A quick Google search for the term doesn't turn up much. Is this a common term that merits its own article? If so, any improvements to the article would be much appreciated (bonus points if you can de-orphan it). If not, we can consider taking it to AfD. Thanks a bunch and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(A sentence needs rewriting by someone who's sure of the subject, which I am not. In fact, according to recent (September 2016 to date) contributions to the Talk page, many aspects of the article need rewriting. I've posted a shorter version of this note there, § "Firstly conceived for...".)

The start of the second paragraph of USB § USB mass storage / USB drive is meaningless as written, and hard or impossible for the non-specialist to interpret (underline added):

Firstly conceived and still used today for optical storage devices (CD-RW drives, DVD drives, etc.), several manufacturers offer external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drives.

What was "Firstly conceived for" all that? Not the manufacturers. Not the "external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drive". Nor, apparently, the USB interface itself, which, according to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article, was "designed to standardize the connection of [a wide range of] computer peripherals (including keyboards, pointing devices, digital cameras, printers, portable media players, disk drives and network adapters) to personal computers." What, then?

The "obvious" guess is the USB interface: probably obvious to the computer-savvy writer(s) of this article, who already knew that, but not to everybody. I'm somewhat computer-literate and that's just my best guess. The computer-illiterate could be hopelessly confused. An encyclopedia, and especially a basic-level article like this one, is meant to help any reader, not just those who don't need its help. --Thnidu (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hope someone will write an article on Gooligan (see also here etc). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if I have some spare time I'll write an article on Gooligan. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Computing/Archive 12 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The articles on the LG G series, e.g. LG G Pad 10.1, mostly seem not to have been updated since 2014, despite the level of detail and focus many of this project's editors devote to mobile device coverage. Consequently, the G Pad 10.1 article, for example, does not cover the G Pad II and G Pad X versions of the device. While, in theory, they could have their own articles, per WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SUMMARY there is insufficient material to warrant a split into multiple articles. We should just create separate sections for the later versions. Given the near-identical specs of the II and X, a single second infobox will suffice for both. Similar updates will also be needed at some other LG G series articles.

I thought of attempting this myself, but much of the detailed mobile device jargon is just gibberish to me, so unless I found really good specs on the devices and copy-pasted details I'm not sure I would get it right. Some of the "usual suspect" sources like GSMarena.com are missing information on some of these devices, e.g. the G Pad X 10.1 (it does have info on the G Pad II 10.1, however). I'm not certain it's not a WP:UGC site anyway; there may be more reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

They are not independently notable, and Wikipedia is not a product guide. So either merge them into the G series article, or else delete them. W Nowicki (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case here but, product reviews in independent reliable sources often render these topics independently notable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Would somebody from this WikiProject mind taking a look at The Bronx Times and possibly re-assessing it? The article was recently prodded, but was restored per WP:REFUND#The Bronx Times. Are there any notability guidelines in addition to WP:GNG and WP:NORG which might specifically apply to online newspapers such as this because the subject does not (at first glance) appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article has been tagged with maintenance templates since January 2014 so it may simply be a case of WP:NRV. Anyway, any suggestions for improvement or ideas about where to find better sourcing would be most appreciated. Feel free to add them to the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've recently checked into the list of WikiProject Computing/Members.

Could this list be improved by stating which members are currently active or inactive or haven't made a contribution in quite some time.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the list could be improved. I have no objection to improving the membership list. Is there something larger to be achieved by having an improved list? ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It will help give a more accurate picture on current users and help allow for better collaboration for article improvements. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a template ready to use, but require a consensus and approval before I start sending requests for updates. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to improving the list but if you could provide more detail about how exactly this would allow for better collaboration for article improvements, you may be able to more readily get the consensus you're seeking. Alternatively, as long as there continues to be no objection, you can just go ahead WP:BOLDLY with the work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A good amount of articles within the scope of WikiProject Computing are in need of improvements. By knowing the amounts of active members, efforts can be made with a better focus as we'll have an accurate overview of the amount of members and how much effort can be focused onto areas which need improvements. There's a good amount of articles which need massive rewrites and collaboration to get to GA status. (Some of which are of high importance and are rated C class or lower.)

In order to avoid mistakenly placing users to "formerly active members" section, a message/request would be sent to all users asking them to update their status. Some time is given afterwords for a chance to update user status before any changes are made to the list. (Perhaps four weeks or so.) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Article is Fake news website.

Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake_news_website#Requested_move_7_December_2016. Sagecandor (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody, first and foremost I have a paid COI to create an article on the industrial internet of things. I know this WikiProject isn't super active, but I was hoping someone here might be able to offer some insight into or assist me with gathering resources to create a new article on the IIoT. The current Internet of things article is a decent jumping-off point, but as it's a bit of a hodgepodge, I thought it'd be helpful to create a dedicated article on the industrial internet of things as it develops. Is anyone free to help me research and create a neutral article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are some other existing articles that touch this proposed topic: Industrial engineering, Industrial Ethernet, Industrial control system. Your first step will be to establish that this is a notable topic and not a neologism. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Check out the new article on MormonWikiLeaks.

Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

On behalf of Huawei, I’ve proposed an expanded Huawei Honor article. You can view my edit request on the article's talk page. I’m trying to find a neutral editor to copy over the proposed draft as appropriate. Is there a WikiProject Computing participant who is able to help? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My list of missing topics related to computers is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Nvidia Shadowplay, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

On behalf of Honor, I've submitted two edit requests to update the Huawei Honor 8 article at Talk:Huawei Honor 8. One is to add an additional sentence to the "Reception" section, and another is to note the record for highest smartphone livestream, as verified by Guinness World Records. I've tried to make these edits as easy to implement as possible by clearly providing sourcing and markup to copy and paste to the article. Is there a project member who is willing to help with one or both of these requests? I can answer any questions on the talk page. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, check Talk:Evan Prodromou#Website. The official website appears to be dead.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am doing a GA Review of this article at Talk:Mozilla Public License/GA1. The nominator has not edited Wikipedia since October 2016. Would welcome some editing assistance so I can complete my Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Cannonlake#Requested move 10 February 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 04:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the MFD article at Multi-function display is up for deletion -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a wikiproject about Open Product Data, "codenamed" WikiObject. It could be good to contribute togheter.

To get a general idea take a look at "has part" properties in Wikidata Item for "Nintendo Switch" https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=19610114 and also general data for Arduino Board Rev 3 https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q25814150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qupro (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Page footer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

changes to introduction[edit source] I am working on this article as there is complete lack of coherence and minimum use of sources. I have added some basic intro lines which are cited from Zend's website introduction page. Following are the various sources that I am planning to add. Please review and if you think that more sources are needed or change some of them.

1. Framework, Z. (2010). Zend Framework.Chicago

2. Supaartagorn, C. (2011). PHP Framework for database management based on MVC pattern. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), 3(2), 251-258.

3. Lancor, L., & Katha, S. (2013, March). Analyzing PHP frameworks for use in a project-based software engineering course. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 519-524). ACM.Chicago

4. Paikens, A., & Arnicans, G. (2008). Use of design patterns in PHP-based web application frameworks. Scientific Papers University of Latvia, Computer Science and Information Technologies, 733, 53-71.Chicago

More edits coming soon. Please looking forward to your comments.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiss.alokozai (talk • contribs) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Anatomy of Zend Framework[edit source] I am adding a section which will cover the anatomy of Zend Framework. It will be a detailed and informative based on the literature. Here is one of the document that is promising to further enhance this document.

http://manning-content.s3.amazonaws.com/download/4/4339124-b6aa-4fdc-bdf9-178c3f3adbd7/allench2.pdf

Thank you, Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.2 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Installation[edit source] This section is focused on the installation of Zend Framework. Details will be given from the documentation source of Zend Framework. Please let me know if you have any recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiss.alokozai (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiss.alokozai (talk • contribs)

@Qaiss.alokozai: I can't be of any direct help here, but you can make your search for help more effective by signing your name with four tildes whenever you add to a talk page: ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Signatures.

Also, in your first reference

Framework, Z. (2010). Zend Framework.Chicago

"Zend Framework" is not the author. It seems to be the title. Is that a book? A website? Take some time to look into Help:Footnotes. Good luck! --Thnidu (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Elliott S. Fisher#Early research on health system performance. I'm looking for a relevant article, about the use of large databases to discover patterns, to link in this section. My knowlege of data analysis is rudimentary at best. I found data mining, but it has a hatnote pointing to a variety of other related articles, so now I'm even more lost about selecting an article to link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I'm a stranger here myself, but seeing your question I thought of "big data". Big data § Healthcare has three refs, two of which appear to be online. I don't know if they're what you're looking for, but they might help. Good luck! --Thnidu (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Thnidu, I've used it as a "See also" link. If anyone can find something better, more specific, please add a link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I ran across Extendable instruction set computer while doing copy-editing. I don't understand the content, but it seems to be largely an advertisement for Advanced Digital Chips Inc. Thought that I'd mention it here in case anyone more knowledgeable wants to take a stab at it. Leschnei (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Leschnei, I've proposed it for deletion. See the talk page.

"The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 07:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)."*

There's a notice on the original author's talk page. As I noted and detailed on the article's Talk page, besides WP: PROMO it's also WP:COI: the user's page shows that they were an employee when they authored the article.

* Hey, that's less than 5 hours from now. But I hope to be sound asleep then. It'll wait. ;-)

--Thnidu (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thindu, thanks for letting me know. Leschnei (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thnidu, properly spelled this time. Leschnei (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leschnei: That's OK, even my wife was never able to get it right. ;-) --Thnidu (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Would someone mind taking a look at ZoneMinder and see if it is notable enough for a stand-alone article? The only two sources cited are WP:UGC and WP:PRIMARY, and these are not WP:SIGCOV needed for a stand-alone article. Perhaps there are better sources which exist, but which just have not yet been added to the article. The article has been around since 2005, and scanning through the history seems toshow it's been pretty much in the same shape since then. Maybe redirecting it to List of free television software is worth consideration? -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed Category:Hardware partitioning which in no way is "hardware" partitioning, since it is soft partitioning, and not hard partitioning (ie. hard sectors inherent in hardware design) and it's all harddrive partitioning, and not say, the partitioning of bus capacity or the IBM BIOS hardwired design that forced the 640kB partition in memory or Intel hardwired design and the 64kB segmentation partitioning -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Computing.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Computing, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the first few sentences of the Subnetwork Access Protocol page use very poor English grammar. I have left suggestions for corrections on the article's Talk page but I am not an expert on SNAP and would appreciate it if an editor would review the changes before the edits are made so that I do not distort the original author's intended meaning. Nicodemus (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made some major changes to Disjoint-set_data_structure as of this version. I note the article was at a C rating with High importance. Is anyone able to comment on further improvements needed? Finog (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Plot to Hack America 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/The Plot to Hack America 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. Sagecandor (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Over the past few weeks, I've been working with Honor to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article. I've submitted an edit request with a suggested infobox and "Specifications" section. I'm looking for a neutral editor to review this simple edit request, which can be found on the article's talk page (I won't edit the article directly because of my COI). I've posted similar requests for help at WikiProject Electronics and WikiProject Telecommunications, but so far no one has replied, so I'm hoping a WikiProject Computing member may be willing to help. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine is proposed to be added in the "2017" page at Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017. Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been adding all citations and doing a little bit of grammar on the animation article, mainly looking around at Google Books. I don't have time to improve this article since I believe it may quickfail at GAN or at FAC. The article had its peer review in 2007, and here's what it looks like after this wasn't reviewed. It shows the lack of referencing as well as cleanup tags. I think the article is very bloated, since it has lot of cruft, balance and lack of focus at least. What I think I can believe is we can possibly format to a better prose without the copyvios, but I don't at moment since I can't think about it. John (Talk) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting for comment on recent queries and edits I posted on the talk page of the article Smartmatic, which is part of this project. I am a journalist researching the topic of voting technology, I came across this article and realized some of the information listed was incorrect. As an editor, I took it upon myself to correct those facts. After making the edits, my edits were quickly reverted by User ZiaLater and he/she discriminated against me because I live in the Philippines. Each edit I made was outlined in the talk page with multiple sources and an explanation of why I made those edits. User ZiaLater has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines and fails to collaborate on these edits. I am requesting Wikipedia editors apart of the computing project review the edits I made and the comments I posted on the talk page. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel 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/Elijah Daniel (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 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. Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Will someone please review Draft:Explainable AI? It seems to me that the draft doesn't explain clearly what is meant by XAI. The draft does note that it isn't clear what is meant by XAI other than as a neologism. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs some more improvement, especially a discussion on ethics, transparency and accountability (e.g., section Recent developments), clearly citing the need for explainable AI. There are certain typos, but I am not sure whether we can make corrections directly or wait for the review to complete. Jsamwrites (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

Articles in draft space (whether or not queued for WP:AFC) can be improved by anyone at any time. This draft was reviewed and accepted by Northamerica1000 and is now in mainspace so can be improved by anyone at anytime :) ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I did not accept this at AfC and publish it to main namespace. Another user did (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

unreferenced and is hard to find any evidence of this existing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. BSOleader (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is apparently something different than Break key. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone interested in ccTLD articles please see this report at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've been working with Honor to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article. My requests to add an infobox as well as "Specifications" and "Release" sections have been answered. However, the editor who helped with these requests is less comfortable handling the request to add a "Reception" section, which can be seen at the bottom of Talk:Huawei Honor 8 Pro. Is there a WikiProject Computing member who is willing to review the proposed text and copy over appropriately? I've proposed two paragraphs of specific text and provided markup to make reviewing and updating the article as easy as possible. Thank you! (I've also posted an edit request for the Honor brand article here, if interested.) Inkian Jason (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Cray-2 article refers to statements that Cray moved to Colorado during that project's gestation. The Cray-3 article refers to sources claiming this occurred during that project. Neither appears to have a source with firm dates, however. I have looked for an answer without result, so far. If anyone out there has a clear source on this I'd appreciate a reference. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

1979 (Boulder) and 1989 (Colorado Springs) dates in Cray, also unsourced. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone at all familiar with the concept of Binary pattern (image generation)? Is it the kind of topic that needs a standalone article, or could it be merged somewhere? I ask because it's an unreferenced orphan from 2009 and I frankly don't know enough about computer graphics to even know where to search or what would constitute a reliable source about it. If it needs merged or deleted I'm happy to take care of that, just point me in the right direction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've been working with Gigamon to suggest improvements to the company's article. While an edit request to update the article's infobox has been answered, I posted two others for History and Operations and haven't yet received any response. As disclosed on the Gigamon Talk page, I have a financial conflict of interest, so I come here for editors interested in computing articles to see if my proposed edits are OK to move into the main space. Thank you in advance, Danilo Two (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I need help on Talk:Windows_8.1#CMPXCHG16B_requirement (another page I changed is Compare-and-swap), preferably from someone with experience with x86 and the CPUID instruction. The original source was [3], which lacked technical detail. - Yuhong (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Yuhong is engaged in content deletion without proper justification, as seen in revision 794141968, revision 794977353, and revision 794142592. Content deletion without proper justification is vandalism!

His claim of "lacked technical detail", apart from being ex postfacto, does very little than converting his act from vandalism into censorship, which is also forbidden. Apart from the fact that lack of highly intricate details is deliberate, it still is not good excuse for deleting stuff.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous IP user 115.135.227.1 keeps readding empty sections to Intel HD and Iris Graphics for future microarchitectures: Coffee Lake, Cannonlake, Icelake, and Tigerlake. I feel these should not be there because of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and what little information is provided is not useful or speculative. I would like consensus on this matter to avoid edit warring. Thanks. --Vossanova ^o< 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Intel_HD_and_Iris_Graphics#Future_microarchitectures. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Computing infrastructure has been nominated for merging. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Any categories should reflect equivalent articles. At the moment "digital infrastructure" does not exist even as a redirect, "IT" and "computing" are redirects to Information technology management#IT_infrastructure. Input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing is needed as it would appear this whole area is a bit of a mess - and maybe the best outcome would be to just delete any "IT/computing/digital infrastructure" kind of categories - it's a pretty vague concept after all and if it doesn't merit an article then that's a pretty good hint that it doesn't really work as a category. Le Deluge (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This proposal highlights the fact that we have no separate IT infrastructure article (it is currently a redirect). This is a gap that I think the project needs to work to fill. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

3 editors does not a consensus make, so I'm inviting more comment there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am a Teradata employee tasked with suggesting improvements and updates to the company' Wikipedia article. I will not edit directly and will try to follow Wikipedia's guidelines for companies and conflicts of interest. I'm currently looking for uninvolved editors to review my first edit request to add the company's logo and remove select inappropriate content from the article. You can view my request here: Talk:Teradata#Request_to_add_logo_and_remove_select_content. Is someone at WikiProject Computing able to assist with this particular request? Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 20:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking of writing an article along the lines of timeline of computer interfaces or timeline of data transmission standards, or something like that. The idea would be to list in chronological order all the ways people have standardized transmitting digital data. I would include things like:

• Data rate
• Maximum transmission distance
• Serial vs. parallel
• Proprietary vs. Open (and if proprietary, licensing criteria and cost)
• Electrical vs Optical vs Radio
• Year introduced

A small sampling of examples I can think of (in no particular order):

• RS-232
• MIDI
• USB
• IBM Bus & Tag
• T1, T3, etc
• Ethernet (many flavors)
• Sonet
• Token Ring
• Fiber Channel
• Current loop
• Bluetooth
• V.35
• Unibus
• SATA

I'm thinking that the inclusion criteria would be that there is sufficient standardization that I could purchase devices made by different manufacturers and expect them to interoperate. The list above covers a wide range of technologies. One might question whether an internal system bus (i.e. Unibus) is really a data transmission standard, but for my purposes I'll consider it to be one.

So, to finally get to my question (before I dive into doing research), does such an article/list already exist? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit lacking in cohesion. These are interfaces in there for a range of functions and distances. Do they really hang together like that? I can perhaps see scope for it as an overall list, but there would need to be more coherent sub lists beneath it: things like the in-cabinet computer buses, peripheral connection standards, LAN standards, telephony scale standards, then wireless.

A few other essentials could include I2C, S-100, HP-IB, Centronics, Firewire, DECnet, ST-506/ESDI/SCSI/IDE/SATA, Sun Fireplane Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about DECnet. I was thinking more of hardware interfaces. DECnet was a networking protocol (suite of protocols, maybe), but AFAIK, there was never any specific DECnet hardware interface. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

There is Timeline of communication technology, which is a bit broader that what you propose. History of telecommunication also has a computer network section. It is a cool idea. I guess inclusion criteria would be decided by whatever secondary sources you found for the subject. --Mark viking (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also: clocking (sync, async, external clock, etc). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've started working on this at Draft:Timeline of data transmission standards; we can pick up the discussion on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

On behalf of Web.com via Burson-Marsteller, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've submitted an expanded and updated draft of the Web.com article for consideration at Talk:Web.com. I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review this draft for accuracy and neutrality, and to copy over content appropriately as a replacement of the current article, which is severely problematic, as evidenced by the 5 tags seen at the top.

Is a member of WikiProject Computing willing to take a look at the draft? It is not terribly long or contentious, and I am more than happy to split the edit request into multiple if you prefer to only review one section at a time. I just posted a similar note at WikiProject Websites, and saw on the talk page banner that WikiProject Computing supports that project, and has more page watchers, so I figured I'd try here as well.

Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is outside my area of expertise, so I'm flagging the problem here for people with more knowledge and competence to take a look. I've recently been exchanging emails with the author of Draft:BitShares, with regards to the poor sourceing on that draft. It transpires that, due to a general lack of coverage of non-BitCoin/Ethereum cryptocurrencies, articles on such topics are uniformly poor in their sourcing and content. Those I've seen so far follow the format:
Cryptocurrency X was dreamed up by Internet entrepreneur Y in his basement (unsourced). It has these features: <list of features, sourced solely to currency's website> and is used by these companies: <list of internet startups sourced solely to those startups>. It is better than all other crytocurrencies because: <list of USPs sourced solely to currency's website).
Some examples include: Waves platform, Dash (cryptocurrency), Peercoin, Digibyte, Vertcoin, SixEleven and probably more. Personally I have no interest in or knowledge of this area, but interested members of this WikiProject who are at a loose end could do worse than try to knock these articles into shape (or AFD them if they genuinely don't meet the notability requirements). Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Before I go about doing any more work on this, can I please get another voice or two in this discussion on material repeated in Computer network. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On behalf of Honor, I'd like to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 9 article, which is currently underdeveloped and inappropriately sourced. The draft I've proposed here very closely resembles the Huawei Honor 8 and Huawei Honor 8 Pro articles, and offers an overview of the model's specifications, release, and reception.

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review the draft for accuracy and neutrality, and copy over content appropriately. The draft is not very long and should not take much time to review. You can read more about the proposed updates within the edit request on the article's talk page. Is there a WikiProject Computing member who can help? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:IP camera#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}}}}}}|the move discussion]].  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Computing

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: What happens if I click "Fix"? I don't want to try it because I don't want it to make changes without me seeing what it does. Does it show you each one and ask what to do? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It shows you an interface where each of the disambiguation links to be fixed appears in bold red letters, and clicking on the link brings up a list of options for fixing the link. Sometimes there is a link on the page that does not appear on the interface because it is in some kind of template. However, no harm can come from clicking the "Fix" button. bd2412 T 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Some weeks back Jason Scott peaked my interest with the craziness of the dot-com boom-bubble-crash. The Internet History Podcast has a pretty interesting overview in the Chapter Episodes. Is there an interest in creating a taskforce for tracking, managing, and expanding articles from this era? — Dispenser 03:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul.

Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts).

This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here).

I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought.

Computers: In particular, a whole lot of "cybersecurity" isn't about computers and their security so much as it is about telecommunications infrastructure and its management and control.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a long-standing merge proposal in need of some concrete decision-making; specifically, whether to merge Shelving buffer with Re-order buffer. One comment on the talk page at Talk:Re-order buffer#Shelving buffer says yes, but the claim is unreferenced and my reading of the pages suggests that they are different. Thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kvng: thanks for your comments/assessment. I've closed the proposal over there. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The F2FS article says, "it supports various parameters not only for configuring on-disk layout, but also for selecting allocation and cleaning algorithms." However, the statement may be ambiguous. If "it" refers to NAND, then the pronoun antecedent agreement is correct. However, "it" may refer to F2FS. Could someone with expertise please clarify the sentence? ProtoArmor (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please would an experienced editor review Draft:SharkLinux, as the article creator Marpet98 (talk · contribs) has declared a WP:COI as Marcus Petit, creator of the software. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

C2.LOP has been proposed for deletion. If you wish to contest the deletion, just remove the tag (and hopefully improve the article). Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:DEPRODDED ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Usually, when there is a subject that I am curious about and can't find it on WP, I google about it until I can create an article. I was recently given a FIT USB drive. It is not clear to me if it is as different from standard USB flash drive as Secure Digital and CompactFlash or whether there should be content in the USB flash drive article about them. I also do not understand why some sources discuss mini USB drives while others mention the term FIT USB drives. It seems that these drives moved to 3.0 technology around 2013/14, but I am not sure when these drives first came into being. Can someone find a way to help readers or help me to find content to help readers in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You might consider expanding USB flash drive § Size and style of packaging to mention this product line. I'm not sure this deserves an article of it's own. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Are the sources on eSATAp good? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

They sources could be better. Here are a couple of book sources, [4][5], but by themselves might not be enough for notability. --Mark viking (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

CT Connect has been tagged for being unencyclopedic and of unclear notability for almost a decade. I'm not sure what we should do with it. Much of it is written as a personal reflection and may be challenging to verify, but there's lots of info in there that looks potentially useful? I'm not sure if the sources exist to support a free-standing CT Connect article, but if anyone know more on the topic perhaps they'd have some input? If not, perhaps we could merge any useful chunks to computer telephony integration, Digital Equipment Corporation, et al? Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Information storage, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Indrian (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

÷,np — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.99.101.70 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposed merge at Talk:LR(*) parser. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there. I invite everyone to participate. There is an ongoing discussion on how to describe the development status of Apache Open Office in the article's infobox. The discussion is at Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:GBA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_April_2018 Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding information and amount of infoboxes on ARM architecture article, see

Talk:ARM_architecture#Why_is_Cortex_(only)_mentioned_in_the_32-bit_architecture_infobox Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the large table. It's broken now, and it will be slightly less broken then, but it should get fixed. I suspect that the problem is with the |-|} at the end.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Users_And_Developers_European_Conference?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80576162
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92785243
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_syntax_and_symbols?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79508147
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLeratorDB?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=48261454

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in the infobox. From what I've read, I'd guess that the problem is the line breaks, and I'd bet that those parameters have span tags added by the infobox (span tags can't handle line breaks).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92428604
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87630999
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89581157
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89681542
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cω?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=73385963
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.td?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=76036948
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=71109618
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=71109619
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_7?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276955
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Resource_Control_Protocol?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=51458132
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Internet_Explorer?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=70272167
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276341
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276335
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276327
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_3?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276337
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_2?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276329
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homography?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=46804131
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Group?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87115346
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.tv?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87267260
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Modular_Jack?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=67826773
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=51912956
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=51912957
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89190287
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_8?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89450027
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_9?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81275782
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87112970
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87112971
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87112972
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87112973
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_10?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81276880
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_11?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91081268
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestgore.com?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81142733
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_Mini?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=53378881
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_9845C?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=81604590
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honours_received_by_Tim_Berners-Lee?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86833911
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lug_Healthcare_Technology?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79818277
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Race?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=85631309

Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I've redrafted a problematic article, Nextdoor, the hyperlocal social network. Although I am an independent editor, I am a paid consultant to Nextdoor. As such, it would be greatly appreciated if an independent editor could review my proposal at: User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor I have also started a discussion at: Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The redirect WONTFIX, which currently targets Bugzilla, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 29#WONTFIX. Your comments in the linked discussion are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added Bugzilla#WONTFIX which I hope helps resolve this. Any improvements to this new stubby material are welcomed. ~Kvng (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated Scene7 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leefeni de Karik (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please spend a few minutes to review the issues at Talk:Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine#Requested move 24 May 2018 and weigh in on whether Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine ought to be moved to Manchester Baby. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Could someone from this project take a look at Mojito (framework)#Application Directory Structure? It looks very odd to me, like a Wikitable gone wrong, but it was apparently inserted in just this format. Perhaps there is a better way to display this information. Thanks! NotARabbit (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote draft about an old computer: [6] However, my English language skills are weak, so I´m not brave enough to move it to the mainspace right now. Can someone look at it and correct spelling errors, rephrase incomprehensible sentences or remove excessive details? Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article to the mainspace. Any corrections/changes are of course welcome. Pavlor (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to identify this image from Commons. What is this? Some kind of Apple? bd2412 T 19:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be some Mac clone, or even generic PC (eg. regular keyboard, two button mouse). The image is too small to say more... Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

... Seems to have stopped ... for about a week ... maybe kick a bot? I've put an entry on Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Computing alerts stopped but if anyone has any ideas or better ideas ? Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Resolved (hopefully) ... A good person has done a manual run. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There are two poorly-attended merge proposals in Macro (computer science), dating from January 2017 and July 2017, which might benefit from the attention of an expert or two. Narky Blert (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. On behalf of my employer, Scaled Agile Inc., I've proposed some updates to the Scaled agile framework article, in order to bring it up to date. Please see suggestions for both the "SAFe framework" section and the "Challenges" section on the article's talk page. Additionally, I've suggested secondary sourcing to address the tag at the top of the "Implementation" section. I invite WikiProject members to contribute to the discussion, especially those who may be familiar with scaled agile.

Thank you. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all

I've just started Marlin (firmware), I'm not experienced in writing articles about software, so if someone could take a look that would be great.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability may be an issue here. I´m not sure sources you used are RS. Pavlor (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to request people's views on splitting on the COBOL article (talk page discussion). It's currently over 100 kB and WP:SIZERULE says that such an article "almost certainly should be divided". The History section takes up a lot of that 100 kB and has enough sources to stand on its own. But I'm not sure if that's best action and I'd like advice on whether leaving it as is or removing content would better. EdwardH (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The articles Pixel (smartphone) and Pixel 2 could potentially be merged onto the Google Pixel article. Any feedback is welcome and encouraged. The area for discussion can be found here. Plantduets (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to merge Relational database management system and Relational database is currently underway at Talk:Relational database. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in participating in that discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Brave (web browser) article:

Should the Brave web browser be classified as a pay-to-surf web browser?

If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Brave (web browser)#Request for comment on "pay to surf" classification. — Newslinger talk 20:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please review Draft:No-code development platform as to whether it should be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't do reviews, but if accepted could immediately be a proposed merge to Low-code development platforms (plural?) which is where No-code currently redirects and which draft creator has has also so edited recently. Probably reasonable at least a redirect should exist ... though whether these should actually be labelled 'No-code platform' and 'Low-code platform' could also be debated.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Computing Team,

After expanding the article above, I removed the stub item on the article page. May I also remove the item which links to this project page on the talk page or should I just leave a comment that the article was improved?

Man thanks for the help and best regards

--Hundsrose (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed stub item to avoid confusion. If still needed please tell me so I can revert this change. --Hundsrose (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to start a new page for Aprimo, which only exists as a redirect to the Teradata page. Teradata owned Aprimo but sold it in 2016 and now Aprimo is an independent company. Can someone help me remove this redirect so I can begin creating a new Aprimo page?BeckieSch (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)BeckieSch

• @BeckieSch .. I can see:

• you've created a draft that is awaiting review.
• The existing redirect page has previously been an article ... but was converted to a redirect ... not necessarily with best practice as their was a sort of unattributed merge.
• I respect the fact if I am correct that you are a paid editor and you have declared this, but I have just spent 10 unpaid minutes working that out. On that basis my suggestion is you should either request help at the village pump or view WP:NCORP and WP:COI and Wikipedia:Attribution carefully and cut and past from draft directly over the article ... but do not be surprised and be prepared if it gets reverted to a re-direct. Deleting the redirect is something I personally would generally not like to do because of risk of losing attribution. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to expand the Imperva article with well-sourced information, but since I work for the company, I would like some feedback on the new content. Please see my comment on the article's Talk Page. Talk:Imperva for suggested source materials. --Tamicasey (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

I can find no evidence of consistent established usage for this term. Searching Google for plugpoint API returns no results featuring this word, but pages using "socket" instead; forcing it with +plugpoint API finds nothing. The page is an orphan (no articles link here), and attempted de-orphaning failed 4 years ago. Although this page has been tagged for nine months for transwiki to Wiktionary, I do not think it has valid content to be added there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! On behalf of Intel as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've proposed some improvements to the Timeline of quantum computing article here. There are currently several claims sourced by press releases, so I've shared some secondary coverage for editors to use instead, and I've also proposed a few short additions of notable developments. I've not received any feedback from editors to date, so I'm curious if any WikiProject Computing members would be willing to take a look. The edit request offers more detail, as well as markup for implementation, if helpful. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-notable software with only "how-to" mentions in tech website articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy keep. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that for practical purposes of a non WP:BUNDLEd concentrated review of X11 articles under Template:Desktop environments and window managers for X11 and Wayland and Template:XWinSys among possible others. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Article_alerts, particularly where notabilty sources are poor. I suggest anyone interested in making sourcing suggestion or possible merges please review any articles of interest. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware Download manager software, Music Notification software programs and plug-ins are or have also being scrutinized. Many articles have extremely poor referencing and have little or no actual or demonstratable claims to Wikipedia:Notability. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Input is requested at Talk:Sarah Sharp#Notability tag regarding the question of notability raised there. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just tagged secure messaging with this wikiproject. I am not sure what the point of the article is at all to be honest - it seems like maybe it should be merged with something (not sure what) or just deleted. Thoughts? Mvolz (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Secure messaging is a reasonable and important topic. That article may not be perfect or describe itself well non technically. However I do understand may be used for example by the public in communicating with certain government departments to send sensitive documents securely through insecure email networks without installing special local software. So people can be using it without really knowing. Thankyou for tagging to this wikiproject, should probably be on other as well Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please help the discuss the focus for this new article at Talk:Information engineering. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the draft ready for acceptance into article space? Is it reasonably neutral and free of unsupported opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we already have a start on this topic with Smart transducer. I'm going to suggest a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we have an article that more majors under WikiProject electronics and would be better discussed there. I've added the WikiProject templates to the talk page. If I understand my electrics right, and I may not, sensors and actuators are subsets of transducers and at first thoughts are perhaps worthy of their own articles. (The merge target already seems a little confused). I read the Smart Sensor article once ... came away with a headache. I sort of broadly agree with the assessor and Robert McClenon's concerns ... There are undoubtably elements of good things but ... somehow, and I am not expressing this well, I dont like the way some things were said and I found myself questioning some things that were said. And on this one I feel a merge could propagate a bigger mess or be trivial, that is not to say a subject expert could not to it, but he might be better simply expanding the target. But I feel more for Wikiproject electronics to judge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on article names, they looks similar. If yes, please do merge them together. Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Some content looks simalar, editors look difference but creation date very close. On has been through a few name changes. Would need someone who is prepared to the merge to go through WP:MERGEPROP.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Sci-Hub article:

Which of the following should be the opening paragraph of the Sci-Hub article?

Option 1 (from revision 864273518):

Sci-Hub is a website with over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.^[1] It bypasses publisher paywalls by allowing access through educational institution proxies. Sci-Hub stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 2 (from revision 864287916):

Sci-Hub is the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles.^[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by illegally using educational institution proxies,^[3] after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 3 (current version):

Sci-Hub is a website which claims to have over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.^{[1][better source needed]} It is stated to be the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles.^[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by using educational institution proxies with credentials to which the site is not entitled,^[4] after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

As "sci-hub.tw" is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, I've removed the URL from the citation in Option 1. You can see the original citation in revision 864273518.

References

1. ^ ^{a b} "Sci-Hub". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. ^ ^{a b} John Bohannon (28 April 2016). "Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone". Science. 352 (6285): 508–512. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5664.
3. ^ Matthew B. Hoy (2017). "Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy". Medical Reference Services Quarterly. 36 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1259918. PMID 28112638.
4. ^ Matthew B. Hoy (2017). "Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy". Medical Reference Services Quarterly. 36 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1259918. PMID 28112638.

If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Need your opinions on whether there should be an article about email testing tools. I've never heard of this subject until this Draft:Comparison of Email testing tools was constructed. Please discuss at Draft talk:Comparison of Email testing tools AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone who knows anything about coding please look at this and advise if it's something we should have a separate article on? Or should it be merged elsewhere or deleted? I can do the legwork I just need pointed in the right direction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• The first thing I'd say is I dont have a clue about this or what I'm talking about. That said I've put a couple of few references on the article talk page, and these are probably enough for notablability. The topic has appeared in a couple of books or so so maybe an article is relevant. Most work seems to related to Arlow, Fowler and maybe a couple of others. I would strongly advise not merging this unless a good candidate occurs and the merger 'au fait' with the subject. There may be some relationship to Software analysis pattern but I think I would strongly oppose a merge or a redirect to that unless someone really knowledge on that subject demonstrates why that is a good idea ( A simple redirect would be of no use and a WP:SURPRISE and may be inappropriate and a full merge would likely be on WP:UNDUE ). Overall I am inclined to leave well alone, perhaps put Arlow on suggested reading.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I know some design patterns, and this one doesn't look particularly worthwhile. It's a simple combination of a few other patterns, and seems to be a vast overcomplication of the concept of inheritance or abstract classes.

I did some searching, and to my surprise found some sources on this, including a couple of books; this would seem to make the topic notable. This topic should at least have a section in Inheritance (object-oriented programming), and perhaps if someone were willing to distill the book sources a standalone article. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I put a See Also in the inheritance article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment as to whether we need to list every disk drive capacity increase in History of hard disk drives#Timeline, at talk:History of hard disk drives#Timeline again. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the article File format is of a very high importance to the field of computing. I wish it was better written. Opinions, ideas, suggestions? User:ScotXW^t@lk 15:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Digital container format is full of bullshit and should be rewritten entirely. Even better would be a redirect to a section of file format. User:ScotXW^t@lk 15:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please review Draft:Cyber hygiene, and see whether it can be accepted into article space? It has been deleted once from article space as original research, then declined from draft space as a neologism, then declined from draft space with a recommendation to merge into computer security. It doesn't look to me like it is ready for article space (and maybe it won't be), but can someone please provide a fourth opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added my thoughts at Draft talk:Cyber hygiene. ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have created a draft article on Draft:Ewin_Tang, a computer scientist who caused a bit of a stir when she and her supervisor Scott Aaronson demonstrated a fast classical algorithm that solves the recommendation problem at nearly the same speed as quantum algorithms. I would welcome edits, additional references, and any further changes that will make this article compelling enough to survive as an article. I am aware that she is incredibly young (she's starting her Ph.D. at age 18) but she was named on Forbes 30 under 30 this year and her work has already had media coverage. The page is here: Draft:Ewin_Tang. Thanks in advance (note I only started editing Wikipedia for the past ~6months so apologies for any errors) Opto kitty (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

30 under 30 should be a robust source for basic WP:BLPN. If the individual claims otherwise stand up to WP:BLP, I'd see it as good to go.

OTOH, personally I would delete it. I wouldn't wish a WP article on anyone, unless it became unavoidable. Certainly get in touch with the subject beforehand and ask if they mind this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I have contacted Ewin already and she has viewed the Wikipedia draft article and is happy with it. However, I will keep it within Draftspace until her papers have gone through peer review. I will note this on her Talk page. Although there is a lot of hype on her fast classical algorithm, it's worth waiting for further articles and info that will likely arise once/if the paper becomes published! Opto kitty (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of fairly recently (5 years) created terms in the DevOps and virtualisation fields, of the form "<Foo> as a <Bar>". For many of them, <Bar> represents "Service" (i.e. a fungible commodity provided by a vendor, rather than a persistent and consistent in-house capital asset): Category:As a service. These are uniformly capitalised: Platform as a Service, Infrastructure as Code, Software as a Service, Logging as a Service. WP:COMMONAME supports the capitalisation, as does vast sourcing from the technical field involved. These terms are also less widely used in their expanded form than the acronym, which is always presented as PaaS, IaC, SaaS etc. Yet, of course, wikidogmatists are renaming all of them, because anything other than rigid Sentence case makes mediawiki cry.

What should we do about this, re capitalisation? I support following COMMONNAME as per the relevant sources from the domain of relevance, not dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The test here should be whether the subject is a proper noun. Basically, does it sound right when you preface the subject with "The"? Try, for instance, The Session Initiation Protocol vs. The Software as a Service. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Does both pages indicate the same, idea is similar. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Connectionless routing appears to be covering both Reliability (computer networking) and Connectionless communication. I don't see anything in Connectionless routing worth salvaging and there are no relevant incoming links so have WP:PRODded it. Feel free to WP:DEPROD if you disagree with this action. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Siri, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hello again from your friendly neighborhood de-orphaner. Anyone have any idea if Commercial Standard Digital Bus is a) notable enough to need a standalone article, and b) if it is, where I could link it from? If it isn't, I'm happy to do legwork to merge it or delete it, I just don't have enough of a clue to judge it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This article looks to be more in the realm of aviation than computing, however judging by the fact other standardised serial buses such as USB and SATA have their own page it might be worthy of one itself. I personally think providing more information and examples are given, the CSDB could be its own standalone page. Inferno986return (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the aircraft network standards. It would be worthy of inclusion into the list of network standards at Avionics#Aircraft networks. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've linked it from Avionics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've posted some new content about the Founder and long-time CEO's contributions during his tenure at Syncsort. I think this content adds color to the historical information about Syncsort during its 50 year history. Can someone take a look at the submission for me? [7] FYI, I currently work for Syncsort. Michael at Syncsort (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, me again with another orphan/stub query. Could SCSI terminating resistor be merged to bus (computing) somewhere? It's a two-line stub about a component of the bus, so I'm not sure it needs its own article, but wanted to get opinions first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• If anything this should be merged to SCSI. There's actually quite a lot of possibly useful expansion possible on this .... and it is possibly a little relevant for 1980 vintage stuff for adding active/passive terminators or even plugging or removing a line of resistors for the device. As time moved on in general most devices auto-terminated. It is arguably possible to expand that article close to the point where this currently inadequate article would be too large and cause undue weight in the SCSI article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, should it just be linked from SCSI and left intact then? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Taking a second look at subject it is already better covered on within Parallel SCSI#Termination ... possibly also Electrical termination. Perhaps the page usage indicates a redirect to section Parallel SCSI#Termination is justified; however I suspect root cause is that the SCSI article doesn't easily lead me to the Parallel SCSI article to look for this stuff (which I think is why I missed it first pass). This is a bigger discussion than needed here and probably ought to be on the SCSI talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've now changed it to redirect to Parallel SCSI#Termination. I hope this resolves the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Gordian knot cut :) Thanks! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your project page doesn't explain how to ask for a re-assessment. I know how to manage needs-image=yes, needs-infobox=yes or even attention=yes (example), but what about XnView with an unknown importance= (???) and class=start as of 2013 (credits: Senator2029, thanks), where I'd say low...mid and C...B as of today? –84.46.53.138 (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson#Requested_move_13_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 08:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking for feedback on my first article. It's based on a NoSQL Database. Can somebody take a look at it and see if I need to do anything else with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GridDB Thank you, IllegalThoughts (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You need third party independent reliable sources (eg. review/s in published/online magazine with regular staff) to establish notability of the article subject. Sources you use are not independent on the article subject (= not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes). The article - as it stands now - would not survive an AfD. Pavlor (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

{{User:BrandonXLF/C
| name = Heartbleed
| image = [[Image:Heartbleed.svg|180px]]
| image caption = Logo representing Heartbleed. Security company [[Codenomicon]] gave Heartbleed both a name and a logo, contrbuting to public awareness of the issue.
| CVE1 = CVE-2014-0160
| discovered = {{Start date and age|2014|4|1|df=yes}}
| patched = {{Start date and age|2014|4|7|df=yes}}
| discoverer = Neel Mehta
| affected software = [[OpenSSL]] (1.0.1)
| website = {{URL|heartbleed.com}}
}}

I've been reading through several of these vulnerability articles and noticed there doesn't seem to be an infobox template for them. I like infoboxes because they summarise a page in one place and was wondering if one would be suitable for those pages.

Here's my proof of concept example:

{{Infobox vulnerability | name = | logo = | logo caption = | logo size = | screenshot = | screenshot size = | screenshot alt = | caption = | [[CVE identifiers]] = | date discovered = | discoverer = | affected hardware = | affected software = | used by = | date patched = | website = }}

Inferno986return (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems necessary. There are a lot of these (see Category:Computer security exploits). ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I've never introduced an infobox template to Wikipedia before. Is there a formal process to do this? Or is it okay to jump-in and revise as we go along? Inferno986return (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that I have started a proof-of-concept infobox for Heartbleed using the generic {{Infobox}} template in my sandbox. Please give feedback and let me know what you think. :-) Inferno986return (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, jumping in is how you do it around here. The results look good to to me. We don't want to use {{Infobox}} directly. What we need to do is define a new template based on {{Infobox}}. {{Infobox Audio over Ethernet technology}} is an example I'm familiar with. I'm not experienced creating such templates but, based on what you've started, I'm willing to jump in and give it a try when I get a chance. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng and Inferno986return: I've made a template at User:BrandonXLF/C and a doc at User:BrandonXLF/C/doc. Please edit it and let me know when you're going to move it. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Looks lovely and a solid step towards a working solution. Inferno986return (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for rivers have available some templating for schematically displaying their course and features: see for example, in the "course" section of River Till, Lincolnshire. Is there something similar for displaying typical file/directory trees, commonly used in UNIX/Linux systems? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: Is there any theoretical example on your mind? Templates for rivers and railways show stations and various intersections. Can we show for the file system something besides hierarchy? Very different from something like that Help:Family trees, mw:Extension:Graph/Demo/CartesianTree? --Sunpriat (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sunpriat: Thanks for your reply. I was recently doing the Newcastle Connection article, using this paper as a reference. Its second section, "UNIX United" on its page 2 (the PDF's page 6) has a typical directory tree. I was wanting to produce something like that. If there is a recommended template here on WP for this sort of thing, I would certainly investigate it. (If there isn't such a recommended template, I'm slightly surprised!). Otherwise the Help:Family trees "Ahnentafel" looks promising (I don't think the horizontal vs. vertical issue is too important). Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: Clade template looks simple special:diff/876461777. In articles about Tree structure almost always hand-made pictures. --Sunpriat (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sunpriat: In your demo, you used both the {{cladogram}} template and the {{Tree list}} template. It seems to me that the {{Tree list}} template is exactly what @Feline Hymnic: is looking for! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Template:Tree list is close to the Tree (command)#Example, but not quite it output (as it will show the very first node we do not know), which can be confusing(or not?) by the similarity. The output of the tree command could be shown according to the MOS:COMPUTING. Here it turns that we copy/redraw the image from pdf. --Sunpriat (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sunpriat: @Feline Hymnic: The directory structure diagram shown in Feline's example document resembles a binary tree more than a traditional directory tree structure. (Most directories are more varied than simple binary trees.) So, whereas Feline's document lists a structure as:

          .
         / \
        /   \
       /     \
unix1 .       . unix2
     / \     / \
    /   \   /   \
     usr .   usr .
        / \     / \
       /   \   /   \
brian .       brian .
     / \           / \
    /   \         /   \
   /     \       /     \
  a       b  quicksort  \
                         b

modern texts would be much more likely to list this structure as:

(Note here that I have added more nodes, with three subnodes each, to show the limitations of the source document's paradigm.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: That's useful. Thanks! The referenced paper, using diagonal lines for its figures, is old, and used the conventions of its early 1980s period. I don't think we need necessarily to copy that formatting. Probably more important is conveying the underlying information in a way that is readily understood in today's conventions. Switching to the underlying principle: is there something in MOS:COMPUTING that says something like "to illustrate parts of a UNIX/Linux directory tree endeavour to use 'Template:tree list'" or similar? If not, should there be? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a requested move from Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software to Wikipedia:WikiProject Free and Open-Source Software. If you are interested, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software § Requested move 23 December 2018. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking for feedback on my first article -- it's been recently updated to include a more diverse citation base. It's based on a NoSQL Database. Can somebody take a look at it and see if I need to do anything else with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GridDB Thank you, IllegalThoughts (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Press releases certainly aren´t reliable sources (for Wikipedia). Too weak to establish notability, this article would not survive an AfD. Pavlor (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this new article and assssing it. It looks like a first attempt at writing an article by a new user. Subject matter seems quite technical, and it reads more like an academic paper than a Wikipedia article. I tried to do some basic formatting cleanup, but perhaps someone here is familiair with the subject matter and can help with the phrasing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@SelimLakhdar: – I did a move and some case fixing. Not a bad first article for someone not quite expert in English, I'd say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Optical interconnect#This article's topic and mergers. 99Electrons (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mootaz Elnozahy In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

{{PROD}}-ded, notability for this IEEE fellow might be given, but no WP:42 sources is not good enough. –84.46.53.16 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by RebeccaGreen, thanks. –84.46.53.209 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

.

Can someone please review this draft? Is it within the scope of this project, or the Engineering project? It is beyond my not-so-recent technical knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, either here or WP:WPCS which is closely affiliated with this project. Looks like coverage of Wavelet topics is not well organized. The draft describes an improvement on Wavelet Tree. The question is whether the improvement is notable enough to require a separate article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if interested editors could comment on the AfD discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Closed with adequate discussion but without consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody let me know if my draft for GridDB NoSQL Database is ready for full publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GridDB

Thanks, IllegalThoughts (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Not better. Only new source (excluding corporate related partners - eg. that Toshiba one) is db-engines.com, which seems to be advertising driven content (at least about page of this website hints about that). There is no traceable editorial oversight, so no RS anyway. Pavlor (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I think I finally understand the hang up. If I remove all of the claims that aren't directly verifiable (such as features) and strip to just history, would that be sufficient with the current crop of sources? Thanks again IllegalThoughts (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No, issue is not in unsourced parts. Main problem is lack of good quality sources: sources you use are either not idependent on the article subject, user generated, or both. Wikipedia has concepts of notability (see WP:N) and of reliable sources (see WP:RS). In short, review in published/online magazine with editorial staff is a reliable source; adverts, company newsletters, blogs or pages with unclear editorial oversight aren´t reliable sources. There is also need for "significant coverage" of the article subject in reliable sources, but this is really a subjective criterion (highly depends on Wikipedia editor and topic). As an example, take the sources in my first article Olivetti M20 (an ultra-obscure computer from the early 1980s): "Byte" and "Bits and Bytes" reviews are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject, "InfoWorld" and "Popular Science" news are reliable sources which are rather short (so in most cases not that significant coverage), company manuals aren´t reliable sources (useable - in some cases - for verifitability, but don´t establish notability), webpage of Reserve Bank of New Zealand is (probably) reliable source for historical exchange rate, but certainly not for general topic of the article (so no notability). Sure, for modern topic, you would rather use online sources: eg. review on ArsTechnica may be a good RS, "tabloid" articles on The Register may be tenable as RS, short news on heise.de are RS (but mostly no significant coverage). You must judge reliability of any source and ask questions like: Is there editorial oversight over published content (error corrections, fact checking)? Is there some conflict of interest (eg. author of the source is also author of the software in question)? Is the source respected among other reliable sources? How broad is target audience of the source (village newspaper vs national newspaper)? etc. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This article seems to be lacking sources. This page contains good information on the topic, and Google made the image a part of their "featured snippet" result for "pixel pitch defined" keyphrase, alongside the link to this article.

Might I suggest using some information from this article and having it listed as an external link? The infographic would also make an excellent featured image for the article.

Thanks, Ryan Meighan --RyanMeighan (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone who'd be willing to have a look at DUALLy and see if it's notable? There are some sources out there, but that's not in my area and I can't quite make heads or tails of them. – Uanfala (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com, not to be confused with Hacker News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Softpedia (softpedia.com) and The Hacker News (thehackernews.com) for UGNazi. — Newslinger talk 12:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. There are many articles about CPU Socket that completely lack info about the supported memory types. Here are some of the Intel Sockets:

• Socket P
• Socket G1
• LGA 1248
• LGA 1567
• Socket G2
• Intel Socket G3

Can someone please help adding that info?

--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it for Draft:Eclipse Theia. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot to do auto-assessment (among other tasks) and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)