Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 13

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.

Power Architecture is a marketing term that was promoted by IBM and Power.org members during the mid- and late-2000s. It is an umbrella term that was used to describe anything that had some relation to the POWER, PowerPC, or Power ISA architectures. It has been out of use by IBM et al. since IBM founded the OpenPOWER Foundation and Power.org became defunct sometime during the early 2010s.

Wikipedia has followed IBM et al.'s usage conventions of this term, and has applied it liberally throughout the encyclopedia, which has resulted in:

• An article: Power Architecture
• A navigation template: Template:Power Architecture
• A category: Category:Power Architecture
• Inclusion in the text of up to 236 articles (this is based a in-text search of "Power Architecture")

There are two problems with this term. Firstly, it's technobabble. It sounds like as if it's a well-defined technical concept, but it isn't. Secondly, it has a large potential to confuse. "Architecture" is an too-overloaded term in ordinary English and in computing. In computing, it could refer to a multitude of different things depending on the context. For example, in the context of hardware, "architecture" could refer to the architecture of a computer system, the architecture of a computer subsystem (processor, memory, I/O, etc.), or the abstract model of a computer (also called computer architecture or instruction set architecture).

My concern is what do readers think of when they encounter "Power Architecture"? Besides the ordinary uses of "Power" in English, IBM has used "Power" or "POWER" in a number of different contexts. Originally, it was an instruction set architecture (IBM POWER instruction set architecture). Then it was a series of processors IBM POWER microprocessors. Most recently, there's a family of computers called IBM Power Systems. Then there are nouns that include "Power" as a part, such as PowerPC. While Wikipedia can't do much about the names of these things, since it must call something by its name, it can omit "Power Architecture" when it isn't relevant to the article, doesn't explain or clarify anything in the article, or doesn't improve the article.

To demonstrate that this is not theoretical, consider the Power Architecture article. Its purpose is to explain what the Power Architecture is, yet it's confused. The article provides a glossary to define the various terms that could be confused with each other, and then proceeds to make two glaring self-contradictions:

• It has a large section about the Power ISA, which the article earlier defined as something that is distinct from the Power Architecture (the former is a computer architecture, the latter is a trademarked umbrella term that may refer to things with a relatation to the former).
• It concludes with a long confused list of things that "implement" the Power Architecture, which is a misuse of "implement", and a misunderstanding of the Power Architecture. If Power Architecture is an umbrella term for various related things, then it cannot be something that can be implemented—it's not a specification.

As another example, consider Template:Power Architecture. The way it is structured is confused. Power Architecture isn't a standard which is "made" by various manufacturers. The standards are the POWER, PowerPC, and Power ISA architectures. Yet there is no consistency in the way that template is organized. That cannot be conducive to easy navigation.

The importance of this term is also overstated on Wikipedia. Category:Power Architecture duly follows Power Architecture's definition; every article that meets the definition is categorized in that category. However, the majority of the articles are about topics that predate the introduction of Power Architecture. Given the nature of computing, the majority of the sources for these articles would likely predate the introduction of Power Architecture as well. Consequently, most, if not all, sources that these articles cite, would not support the claim that these are Power Architecture topics. To say that they are Power Architecture topic places undue weight on the marketing from IBM et al.

Because Power Architecture is a vague, ill-defined marketing term and has a large potential to confuse, what is its encyclopedic usefulness? I would argue it has none. It's not a definition that explains and clarifies, and it doesn't group topics together better than the existing schemes that are founded on technical criteria. It exists on Wikipedia because it does elsewhere; and its conventions are followed because Wikipedia can, not because Wikipedia should.

The organization of the topics that fall under the Power Architecture umbrella should be determined by what makes good sense for an encyclopedia. To this end, I think:

• The Power ISA content in Power Architecture should be split out into Power ISA.
• The content in Power Architecture about the term should be merged into Power.org. It is sufficient to explain that Power Architecture is a marketing term in the article about the organization which spawned it.
• Every mention of "Power Architecture" in contexts other than as a marketing term should be removed from Wikipedia. There's no need to insert this term into every topic that Power Architecture deems falls under its umbrella. Where this term has been used mistakenly instead of the correct term, the mistake should be corrected. For example, if an article about a processor describes it as a Power Architecture processor, then the actual architecture the processor implements should be mentioned instead.
• Category:Power Architecture should be deleted. There's no need to categorize articles under it just because IBM et al. say their topics retroactively fall under the Power Architecture umbrella.

99Electrons (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of this sounds reasonable to me. The only standard other than the Power ISA that I see mentioned on Power Architecture is the Power Architecture Platform Reference; other standards can probably have their own pages as well.

Power.org appears to be dead; is that a further sign that "Power Architecture", as a concept, is also dead? The OpenPOWER Foundation page (which I just fixed to use https: for all openpowerfoundation.org links, as that site seems to reject Boring Old No-TLS HTTP) says that "Power.org is still the governing body around the Power Architecture instruction set" - is that now out of date?

And is there anything in the PowerPC ISA that isn't in the Power ISA? If not, the two ISAs should perhaps be discussed on the same page - perhaps have a single page for the ISA, have "PowerPC ISA" redirect to it, and combine ISA information from PowerPC and Power Architecture on that page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Curses to IBMs terrible naming strategies. And I agree with Guy Harris.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: I'm almost certain "Power Architecture" as a brand is dead. I can't find any non-incidental or legacy use of it on IBM's website (which seems to use the OpenPOWER brand instead). It's the same for the OpenPOWER Foundation. I can't find any current use of Power Architecture using that website's search function or with Google.

I think merging the PowerPC article and Power ISA content from Power Architecture is a better solution than having a separate article for the Power ISA. The latter is clearly an outgrowth of the former: The manual for Power ISA 2.07B ([1]) says in the preface that Power ISA 2.03 was created in 2006 by combining PowerPC 2.02 with PowerPC Book E, which was then not a core part of the architecture. Note that in Power ISA 3.0 B, all of the embedded features introduced in 2.03 were removed (as documented in the preface of [2]). I personally don't think this is relevant to the question of whether PowerPC and Power ISA can be covered in the same article, as 3.0 B is still a development of something that began with PowerPC. 99Electrons (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I forgot to mention this in my OP, but there's a few discussions concerning "Power Architecture" and "Power ISA" in category names that has some relevance to this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 30#Category:Power Linux distributions
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 30#Category:Power operating systems
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 22#Category:Power microprocessors

99Electrons (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that most of this confusion is due to IBM's inconsistent use and definition of what's what. I've tried my best to unclutter it, but hell, it's not easy. I cant be as invested in Wikipedia as I've been in the past, so I gladly pass on the enthusiasm to whomever what to keep on pushing. Most suggestion seems reasonable. You have my blessing going forward. -- Henriok (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree The phrase "Power Architecture" is really dumb and ambiguous, to distinguish its usage for several different things, there is need to use correct phrase. Editor-1 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of LWN.net (formerly Linux Weekly News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § LWN.net for Draft:NumWorks. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 02:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the article on Harald Tveit Alvestrand has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand. You are invited to join the discussion. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS component has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox software. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Computing members,

WikiProject Apple Inc. has halted and needs editors to restart it. If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch. Post a message there, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word,

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

.

Apple TV, 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. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Haskell (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Java (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Python (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel as if only people who work at google or closely associated with and/or American is not enough in this list. Dprophitjr (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in creating a new page that would fall under the Computing wiki project. It's a competitive intelligence program called Cipher; I am currently a student of intelligence studies. It's relatively new and has developed by Knowledge 360. I was hoping you would be able to offer me tips to make the page more successful from the start. Any insight you can give is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lash975 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

By "page" I presume you mean a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about topics that have already been noticed by independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the first place to publish information on a topic. Our guideline Notability goes into more detail. As you start to read that policy, you will see mention of special-topic notability guidelines (e.g. for books, or for sports and athletes). I don't think there is any special-topic notability guideline for computer software, cryptographic systems, or mathematics, so you can just go by the general notability guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any independent third party coverage of this software? I mean reviews in mainstream media, not some no name blogs or community sites. Without strong sources, new article would not survive for long. Could you link here 2-3 best sources you found, so we may review them? Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, (ARP = Address resolution protocol) ARP spoofing is a pretty common network security vulnerability and the ARP spoofing page does not include proper information about how to defend against such an attack in the defense tools section for windows, I tested a lot of the tools my self and most of them do not work properly, at least on windows 10, which is pretty unacceptable seeing how common and easy this attack is to execute, I am not knowledgeable enough to add certain information either, if any network literates can add to it, that would be great Apool125 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a network that uses ARP and an attacker with direct access to the local network segment? If so, a VPN is considered to be the best defense. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Newly created article that might not be notable per WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. There may be specific notability guidelines for software, so I was wondering if someone could take a look at this and assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like solid sourced article now. However, as usual, you may check: 1) if these sources have broad coverage of the article subject, or only passing mentions; 1) if their publisher publishes anything (vanity press, some open access "journals"), or is more selective; 3) if there is some connection of authors of said sources to the article subject (eg. developers themselves), or it is third party independent coverage. Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Pavlor. I also asked about this at WT:FOSS#Mahara (software) and another editor named Newslinger was able to find the additional sources and has been cleaning up the article. I'm sure any additional feedback/suggestions you may have would be welcome on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a general purpose computer is a computer that can, in theory, be used for many different purposes. As an example, the microcontroller in my keyboard (an ARM Cortex) is a general purpose computer (the same chip is used in PCs, toasters, printers, robots...) despite it being used for a special purpose and despite it not being easy to reprogram to do something else.

I was just reading our article on Colossus computer, and found that Colossus computer#Influence and fate claims that the definition of a general purpose computer is not whether it actually is usable for general purposes but [A] whether it was designed for a specific purpose (which would imply that the Intel 4004 isn't a general purpose computer) and [B] to be general purpose a computer must be Turing complete. (Actually, no computer is fully Turing complete because no computer has an infinite amount of memory available, but we traditionally ignore that detail). Is this a useful definition? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To me, a general-purpose computer is not just one that can be used for many things, but in principle can by used for any thing for which it has sufficient memory. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, here are some online definitions:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7] Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the term probably came in use in the 1960s (1950s) where certain digital computer models were optimised for scientific number crunching and others were more optimised for business transactions .... see IBM 7090, CDC 6600 vs IBM 1400 for example. The IBM 360 was a general purpose design to cover both.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking through books, trying to find a definition. This is from a classic textbook, Computers: Appreciation, Applications, Implications - an Introduction, by J. Mack Adams and Douglas Haden, Wiley, 1973, p. 6:

Digital computers can be further divided into two classes: special-purpose and general-purpose. A general-purpose computer is really quite like the SMD [Symbol Manipulation Device]: a very flexible symbol manipulator. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer that is always used the same manipulations or class of manipulations (i.e. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer with the program built in or with at least most of the program built in). An example of a a special-purpose digital computer is a missile-guidance computer: it has a very specific task for which it is designed and is not expected to be able to run a payroll program, for instance, in addition to its designed task...

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that you have nailed it. I think we can remove the Turing machine claim, and any claims based upon what it was originally designed to do as opposed to what it is capable of doing.

As I read your sources, I changed my mind about something. The microcontroller in my keyboard is a special purpose computer, even though it is an ARM Cortex-M and the ARM Cortex-M is a general-purpose computer. I realized that context is everything. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This draft was developed by a user who is no longer active, but appears on first glance to be appropriate for evaluation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think there is an existing article of the same name ... just to cause complications. This draft might be more appropriate for Wikibooks...Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There was an article already, based on the same draft. The presence of the slash in the title confuses the macros, so that I didn't know that there was an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a new multiplication algorithm. Does it need an article, or be mentioned in an article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Could a section on 'currently working' machines be added as it only describes decommissioned machines - For example the 64 CPU machine based at the Centre For Computing History in Cambridge?

James 14/04/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha0124 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not? If you have a good reliable source to back up this claim, feel free to add this to the article. However, I would not create a new section (putting short note at the end of the models section should be sufficient). There is also question of due weight of such information, but this kind of computer is not a device everyone has in their house. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As recommended by user:Michael Bednarek in the article's talk page, I suggest to merge Phoenix Labs, an inactive, former software development company into PeerGuardian, the company's software. As is disclosed on my user profile, I am an employee of Phoenix Labs - a separate company with the same name that is active and operating. Once merged, the article Phoenix Labs could - with the appropriate hatnote - be repurposed for Phoenix Labs the active game developer.

Current Phoenix Labs article has no references to reliable sources, so there is possibility of deletion anyway. There are several solutions:

1) Move to eg. "Phoenix Labs (software company)" and then redirect to "PeerGuardian". "Phoenix Labs" name will be then free for another use (page usurpation) without losing or mixing article edit history. Well, there may be problems with links to the original page changed to redirect. Certainly not the easy way.

2) Deleting the original article (eg. via WP:PROD) and using the now free name for your article (with hat note to the PeerGuardian article).

3) Using another name for your article (eg. Phoenix Labs (video game developer)). Cheap and easy.

However, as you have conflict of interest, you should publish the new article via WP:AfC. Note notability requirements for companies are much higher than for eg. video games, really good sources are needed to keep such an article. Pavlor (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Wondering if anyone from this project can offer some thoughts on a question I posed at the Citrix Systems Talk page: Would editors support simplifying the current Products section to a much more straightforward and short statement of the company's major offerings? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amiga. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Under the parent "Pentium-branded processors" section, the last apparent listing for the most-recent Pentium generation ends at Kaby Lake. No mention of Coffee Lake Pentiums except as an aside within the header information. In fact, the G5400, G5500, and G5600 series Pentiums aren't even listed once in the entire article. The new Gold G5xxx and G5xxxT processors should be included. Rhombuth (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Software seem to be moribund I am posting here. Can anyone who is familiar with the various platforms/services of Microsoft Outlook please comment at the RM discussion on Talk:Outlook on the web? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If possible, I'd appreciate some brief input from interested parties here into the discussion at Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers. It's regarding the merits of the changes to the template with respect to its usability and the interpretation of our policies. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of SitePoint on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § SitePoint for Grav (CMS). — Newslinger talk 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Data erasure page seems loaded with off-topic content. Please consider having a look at the discussion I started over there. — soupvector (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I raised a concern and a proposal at Tim Berners-Lee#Criticisms because I felt the W3C's EME(/DRM?) proposal was becoming too much of a soapbox with undue weight on that WP:BLP page. I'd appreciate neutral eye's of good standing to have a look. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently an edit request from an editor with a conflict of interest pending in the Gray code article which requires a math background, in particular, a knowledge of the reflected binary code used in that numeral system. Any editors who might be able to review this request would be most appreciated.  Spintendo  01:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of The Next Web on the reliable source noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Next Web for ProProfs. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that HTML, 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, 3 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

This should read "X3D is a royalty-free ISO and IEC standard for declaratively representing 3D computer graphics." The standardization work is carried out by the joint ISO and IEC technical committee (JTC1), which is why the standard numbers are preceded by ISO/IEC. Omitting the 'IEC' part is a bit unfair to the unpaid IEC technical experts who devote their time to developing standards. ^{[1] [2]} MichaelAM (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I rewrote that part, feel free to propose any changes you like (if you aren´t able to do them yourself yet, the article seems to be protected since 2010). Pavlor (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ACM-W chapters 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/List of ACM-W chapters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.Cypherquest (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ACM-W Celebrations 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/List of ACM-W Celebrations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Cypherquest (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Computer graphics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

is still learning how to control my cookies chain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.33.51 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

For armchair/hobbyist phoneticists: There is discussion at Talk:Kirshenbaum because following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirshenbaum and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 29 discussions a redirect has been created which seems to me not consistent with the results of those discussions and possibly the loss of information. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, revert. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The Athlon article has been proposed to be split, but the proposal hasn't received much attention. Please discuss on the talk page. --Veikk0.ma 11:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There are at least of couple of VPN Products/providers up for AfD currently (and I'm aware of a few other article out there). This can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship an which ones work in China etc. We have a at least a couple going through AfD currently and I'd like a project viewpoint on where we would like to stand on this from an efficiency point of view. I'm not really interested in playing tiddlewinks with how RS a review is and who is WP:PAID the brown envelops behind the scene . I want them batched out if necessary if that's what the community wants. Currently at AfD are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gom VPN
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN

I may get round to pinging people at some point: Criteria might want to consider are:

• Sustained presence
• Size
• Do they work in certain regions or are the only ones permitted in a region ... e.g. China
• Security concerns.
• Popular for whatever reason in a particular area

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat bad idea. These criteria are arbitrary, subjective and against the very core tenets of Wikipedia. WP:N and WP:RS are the "rules" we should follow. We may discuss degree of coverage needed for a VPN service to establish notability, but not inventing our own hard to judge rules. Pavlor (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a proposal of that shape is not going to mesh with existing notability criteria. The applicable guidance we have in this area is WP:NPRODUCT. It's fairly simple in practice: if we can find a couple reviews published by WP:RELIABLE sources, we can keep it. We try to stay out of issues like "can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship" because that's an even weirder game of tiddlywinks. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

At best you can write an WP:ESSAY, but even that may be a bad idea. There is nothing unique about VPNs that require us to consider them differently from other software from an inclusion standpoint. feminist (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

... OK .. so where do people stand on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullvad ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of TorrentFreak for a claim related to Web Sheriff and MusicBrainz on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Maxit (maxit.my) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Maxit for WeChat. — Newslinger talk 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A declared COI editor/employee of Avast has drafted a version of the AVG Technologies article at User:Empey at Avast/AVG Technologies Draft. See discussion on the article talk page, where the user has agreed to leave the Controversy section intact. I am not familiar with the computer security realm, so anybody who is, I would appreciate their input on the other drafted changes. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nexus 5X is the only phone that is presently supported by Plasma Mobile's (it seems to no longer be developed for Nexus 5) KDE neon reference rootfs. I feel this is worth a one sentence mention in the Nexus 5X article, as no other phone is supported, and this is the OS the Plasma Mobile team recommend users try Plasma Mobile on (which makes it particularly notable for this use). User:Galatz feels this is trivia, while I do not. I am just here to ask whether this is believed by members of this project to be notable and encyclopaedic enough to warrant a mention in this article. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion here ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Software 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wonder if anyone's interested in starting Retro-Computing Society of Rhode Island? I found a Projo article on it http://web.archive.org/web/19990429011154/http://www.projo.com/special/computer/0905fea1.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There is an active organization (which is very likely a descendant of the group you cited) know as the Rhode Island Computer Museum. Their web site is at http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/ Mopep222 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone give a third opinion at Talk:Arbitrary-precision arithmetic? I'm not involved in the dispute. There are disagreements between two editors over several issues, the main one seems to be big-O versus Theta. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu). If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu) for /e/ (operating system). — Newslinger talk 03:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Microsoft (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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silk Test 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/Silk Test until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Theprussian (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

E-text is currently unacceptably bad.

- It reads like a personal essay. (WP:NOTESSAY)

- It's been tagged with "This article needs attention from an expert in Books" since November 2008.

- It's been tagged with "This article needs additional citations for verification" since January 2013.

Can anyone improve this article? Thanks.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What is computing... im thinking it involves computers...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killershark101 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the reliability of Liliputing (liliputing.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Liliputing. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have collected a mixed bag of articles with computing-related DABlinks where expert attention would be welcome. It supersedes my post of October 2018. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Ballerina (programming language)
• Click tag
• Fourth-generation programming language
• ProGet
• R2ML
• ZFS

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, came across the above software article while fixing typos but am wondering whether it is notable enough for a standalone article as it appears to be contrary to WP:NOTJARGON/WP:NOTGUIDE, also found this - "Nkf is a yet another kanji code converter among networks, hosts and terminals.", so doesn't appear to be unique/significant? please be gentle if i am totally offtrack (maybe sending be a minnow:)) as i am not very computer savvy, hence why am asking here, and not boldly sending it to afd, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The article looks like a direct copy from the application documentation (possible copyright violation). Speedy deletion (G12) may be suitable in this case, or simply use Prod and wait, if anybody improves the article. Pavlor (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have requested deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigation, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  What is the correlation between the functions of certain parts of the human brain and a CPU?

In order to extend or create a new type of life-form -- whether it is "synthetic" or "Naturally occurring" -- you will and would/should need a template of some sort. ARM64 for short-term memory, input. POWER for learning, recurring accumulatively cumulative tasks. SPARC64 for database, long term memory, scaling, "growth", "evolution" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:4BBC:2000:9644:52FF:FEC2:881 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've started a section at the above-linked talk page: there is a fair bit of information to be harvested from the links I give on OCML, but since, while some of the ideas seem interesting, it did not seem to be the clear impetus for anything that followed. Does the page have a future? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Folding@home 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. GamerPro64 17:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SunPCi 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/SunPCi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. --mikeu ^talk 22:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've come across the recently-created Category:Mobile/desktop convergence and am not quite sure what to make of it - rename, expand,delete? At present it lists mobile devices and OSs that are designed to also plug into a desktop setup. Rather than take it straight to WP:CFD I thought I'd run it past you guys first - so what do you think? Le Deluge (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks very confused. The title says Mobile/Desktop ... the description says laptop. Lots of alt. words here ... mobile-cellphone and laptop-notebook. Let alone is the slash recommended or permitted? Too many problems .... category of confusion. Thats my view. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's my feeling, but I thought there might be something I was missing. Slashes are permitted in cases like Category:OS/2 where they are part of a name but otherwise discouraged, ideally a category name should reflect an article name. Le Deluge (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Internet Society article, listed as high importance in this project, is currently trashed. I wrote a fresh base version, and posted it. It got reversed a couple times, so I now have a RFC on whether it should be restored. Currently only one comment, apart from an admin keeping an eye on. If you have time please drop by and look it over. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is a self-promotional COI disaster full of excessive unencyclopedic detail and link spam, but it also has some potential topic-wise. It would be great if anyone interested in the subject matter could have a look at the article to do some basic cleanup. Many thanks for any help. GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have created an article from AFC request, please review my draft. Draft:Golog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4444dot (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Computer hardware, 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, 13 January 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Anybody willing, please review my recent contribution to HTML element article (see DIFF here), especially the most recent addition at Special:Diff/937174234. Feel free to improve or move elsewhere if necessary, or remove if excessive. --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S.
If this is not an appropriate place for this request, please move it elsewhere as well. CiaPan (talk)

A while ago, a new draft was created about a software for realizing neural networks with the Intel compute stick. The software is mentioned in Google Scholar by independent sources and it's about Artificial Intelligence, so it's for sure that the article is needed in Wikipedia. I think the draft in the current form has some serious issues, but the article can be improved by adding valuable sources. Unfortunately, my edit in the draft section was made undo Special:Diff/937360430.

The question is what will happen next? One option is to wait for the review which is happen in 3 month. They will come to the same conclusion like the last time, that the article has a low quality and isn't moved into the main section. The other option is, that a high ranking admin will take action and improve the article by putting my edit back into the article. Or the third option is, that my edit was wrong and the draft get accepted in 3 months as a valuable article.

My experience with Wikipedia is too low to provide a probability matrix for the next events, but it was a pleasure to write about the issue here at the talk page and I'd like to say hello to the Wikiproject computing. Manuel --ManuelRodriguez (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft is far from mainspace ready and your contribution had some issues ... I'm a lowly scruff not a high ranking admin but I've viewed that article previously and *might* take a gander at it in a couple of days ... if I've done nothing in a couple of days give me a ping. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We could use some help reducing the backlog at WP:WPAFC. You don't need to be high-ranking to join this project, you just need to have been an editor for 90 days and have 500 edits and familiarize yourself with the process and policy. Leave a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants if you want to join. The policy, in a nutshell, is to accept drafts that are unlikely to be deleted at WP:AFD. This draft appears to meet this criterion so I have accepted it. As to ManuelRodriguez's contributions, that can be handled with WP:BRD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I've opened a discussion on Talk:List of Python software about whether items in the list should require an article or a secondary source. Though I'd also like to ask if the project has its own guidelines for this Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Since my request was deemed not appropriate for 3O, I'd appreciate someone in this WikiProject taking a look at Talk:S/MIME#Should "Free S/MIME certificate issuers" belong to the article? and the following diffs:

• Special:Diff/942749457
• Special:Diff/943533941
• Special:Diff/943632365
• Special:Diff/943632365 Special:Diff/943688005

The discussion and editing has come to a standstill with no agreement. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC); edited 05:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the third and last diff are the same; the last one should be Special:Diff/943688005. I am not otherwise getting involved. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Macintosh Classic for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe 05:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have collected several pages which contain {{disambiguation needed}} tags on computing-related topics which might be resolvable with expert attention. They range between the very technical and the very vague (in some cases, it seems quite possible that the editor who made the link didn't know what they were talking about). To find the problem, search for 'disam' in read view or for '{{d' in edit view. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article, and post {{done}} here.

• OpenMPT
• msg.ai
• Dark0de
• Computer Aided Transceiver
• Viterbi algorithm
• Distributed cache
• ISO 25964
• jBPM
• Firebase
• IBM Mashup Center
• Direct digital control
• Kurt DelBene
• RUNT Linux
• PathSolutions
• Kollective
• Creative Destruction Lab
• Integrated device manufacturer
• Noise-predictive maximum-likelihood detection
• 2018 opinion rigging scandal in South Korea
• Atomic Reach
• Concise Command Language
• STARAN
• Autocomplete
• Stencil buffer
• Fragile States Index
• Cost estimation in software engineering
• Threaded binary tree
• Greg Panos

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk)

All of these issues appear to have been addressed at some point. ~Kvng (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, one of my Wiki-friends has recently organised on edit-a-thon in India, focusing on cyber-related topics. It was conducted in an educational organisations, and students have created a few drafts which need to be reviewed before moving to the mainspace. These drafts are;

• Draft:Dynamic Digital Visuals
• Draft:Telecommunication and Information Gathering
• Draft:Static Digital Visuals-Photos
• Draft:Facebook Security
• Draft:Google Search(Methods)
• Draft:Google Information Gathering Techniques
• Draft:Google products
• Draft:Online Threats
• Draft:Windows Security
• Draft:Wireless network security
• Draft:Android Securitry
• Draft:MacOS Security
• Draft:Payment card security
• Draft:Monitoring Tools and their detection
• Draft:Password Security
• Draft:Child Cyber Saftey
• Draft:Software Security
• Draft:How to report a Cyber Crime
• Draft:Incident Response and Recovery
• Draft:Cyber Threats
• Draft:Hacking(Act)

It would be great to know which of these articles are notable in the first place, even if not ready to be moved to mainspace immediately. In that case, any suggestions for improvement would be of great help. Lastly, if an article is not article, suggestions about adding the content to existing articles or any if don't belong here at all -- an opinion in this regard will be of help. Thanks in advance, KCVelaga (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to state that this is information on safety against cybercrimes, if not mainspace, can we consider moving this to the simple wiki?

Regards

-Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

By words of an AfC template: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." I fear most of the above drafts are unsuitable as articles for an encyclopedia. There are already articles covering some topics (eg. hacking), maybe best course of action would be to find existing articles and marge useable parts from these drafts to them, so not all work is lost. Pavlor (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A role model for newbies to become familiar with the editing process in Wikipedia is a wikiproject. In the concrete case of computer security, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_Security is the correct starting point. What the users in this project are doing is to create article requests, fulfill article wishes and extend existing content. The recommendation is to read through the documentation, monitor what the existing members in the project are doing and then imitate their behavior.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there was a lot of work put into these drafts. I would hesitate to make a blanket assessment of them but I agree that there seems to be a systemic WP:ESSAY issue. That isn't necessarily an insurmountable problem. If the topic is notable and not covered elsewhere, a flawed draft can still be accepted and improved over time in mainspace. It looks like Draft:Incident Response and Recovery is the only draft actually submitted for review. There is no problem submitting the others to WP:AFC and see what further feedback you get there. I am an AFC reviewer and could help process these. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A comparison of optimization solvers in the section 'Freeware/free for academic use' will be very helpful. A table comparing the limitations (Max no. of variables, Max no. of constraints, features) of all the solvers CPLEX, Gurobi etc.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qx2020 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

On the Prometheus (software) page, I opened a discussion on this topic: Talk:Prometheus (software)#Dimensionality v. Cardinality. I would like to state that Prometheus supports high dimensions. Welcome any comments. Thanks - DutchTreat (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• 49.145.160.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello friends and fellow editors, it has come to my attention that some mass edits were made recently by this IP editor. I am unable to effectively double-check his edits for correctness, except for the obvious one that I was able to revert, due to owning the device in question. However, one false edit leads me to wonder if a lot of these other edits are also false. Primarily changing "LED" to "IPS" on many of these displays, five years old and such? Doubtful! If anyone has the resources and time to double-check the edits, please help out and let me know what you find. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed and reverted a bunch of these. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, is matting the same as image segmentation? Or is it a subtype or something? --179.26.147.196 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In image processing, matting refers to extracting foreground from background and is a kind of segmentation. Here is a survey on the technique. We have a general article on mattes at Matte (filmmaking). --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cortana, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I started Draft:Culture of Silicon Valley. You can work on it if you are interested.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

IP over Avian Carriers concerns joke RFC 1149 about using pigeons to carry packets. Should a photo of a dead pigeon be added (diff) as "An example of packet loss"? Please edit the article or comment at Talk:IP over Avian Carriers#Dead bird photo. A month ago, I semi-protected the article (now expired) and would like to stay uninvolved. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The redirect page for Edit pane is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#Edit pane, and I don't know how to let you guys (gender neutral) know. It appears that we could really use some expertise here, and at the proposed new target Paned window#Computing. --Bejnar (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that articles for non-flagship mobile devices often have issues with formatting consistency, presence and absence of different info and so on. To help with this issue, I am proposing that a basic article structure (currently at User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/Non-Flagship Smartphone-or-TabletComputer-or-FeaturePhone Standard Article Structure) be adopted for all such articles. This structure is meant to make it easier for editors to know what belongs in the article and how it should be presented, and is not meant to be strictly followed (the infobox is the only place where I believe that formatting conventions should be more rigid, but editors should rephrase sentences and rewrite paragraphs if needed). The structure is currently still being created, but I’d like community input on improving this structure in terms of grammar, technical accuracy and conciseness. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is also available on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology. All discussion is expected to be in this section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology

• Deep learning super sampling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article concerns a new video card (actually a GPU, I think) and an IP has added an "appears to contradict itself" tag. Is that tag justified? Does the article have significant flaws? Please edit or join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the article Paned window be renamed? Should it discuss GUI panes and panels? Would GUI screen terminology be a better title? --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! On behalf of IBM, I am requesting to add relevant information pertaining to Dr. John Kelly to the article's History section. Kelly has been the director of research and an employee of IBM for 40 years, and has played a major role in the development of Watson, but he is not mentioned in the current article. Would a member of WikiProject Computing be willing to please review my proposed language and sourcing, and implement if appropriate?

Thanks for any help in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Oracle ZFS recommends reorganising material between three related articles. I have a computing background but am a gnome rather than an article author. Please can someone who knows the subject matter help out? Certes (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, but should the Unicode chart tempates include a link to the Unicode core specification chapter for each block as well as the link to the Unicode code charts? VanIsaac_WS^cont 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

See here. Please can you-all make an article on this new language? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There does seem to be adequate reliable coverage to write something. It was just released this past week and WP:NOTNEWS so there's no hurry. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"... uncomputation is at the core of Silq’s approach and built-in natively. While there is a classical analog to uncomputation, it’s not necessarily the most intuitive of concepts.".

Can you at least tell me what uncomputation is? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Presumably uncomputation, as Silq is for quantum computing. I can't find any media coverage other than the site linked above. Certes (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I should have found it myself.

The time-evolution of a quantum system must be a unitary transformation. This would be the analog of reversible computing. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Computing editors: I am looking for fresh eyes to review a request at Talk:Internet Society. I work at Internet Society, so I have a conflict of interest that I disclosed earlier this year. I joined Wikipedia to be a resource to assist Wikipedia editors in bringing the article about the Internet Society up-to-date. Since late last year, there has been some back-and-forth editing on the article and discussions on its talk page. To start, I proposed updates for the article's Organization section because the section in the live article does not cite any references, and it does not tell readers about the kind of work the Internet Society does. I welcome collaboration and I am happy to edit my proposed draft to better meet Wikipedia's principles, practices and spirit. Would you help me do that?

Thank you. Neville at Internet Society (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Expert eyes needed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_25#Category:Binary_logic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! On behalf of Citrix Systems through my work with Beutler Ink, I wanted to raise with editors a suggestion for fixing current confusion on Wikipedia regarding Citrix Systems' Citrix Workspace. There are currently two articles for Citrix Workspace, one of which should be for a different product and the other needs a fix to the title and content. If you'd be able to help, I've explained in more detail in this Talk page request. I also reached out to WikiProject Software, but have not seen any responses. Let me know what you think! Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: An editor is looking into this request. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help! Expert eyes are needed at Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits.

In a nutshell, there is disagreement about the template caption. Originally "Part of a series on the ALU", I renamed it "Part of a series on arithmetic logic circuits" per the proposal and reasons given at the top of the talk page. The proposal seemed uncontroversial at the time, and objections were not raised for more than a year. This seems like it should be a straightforward matter, but the conversation has moved sideways and evolved into a giant wall of text. The discussion is in desperate need of input from independent experts to get things back on track and reach a satisfactory resolution. Lambtron talk 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please come participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elecom (2nd nomination). Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospace. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! On behalf of IBM as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've submitted an edit request to add mention of Watson's use at Bambino Gesù Hospital to the article's Current and future applications section. I've provided specific text and sourcing, but one editor has suggested perhaps I've proposed too much detail about John Kelly (the "father of Watson") in my request and asked that I find other editors to take a look. Would any other editors be willing to review my proposed text and update the page if appropriate? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Members of this project might be interested in this deletion discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This deletion discussion affects a large number of EBCDIC code pages in bulk. There is possibly a consideration to transition them to e.g. WikiBooks. This also sets a possible precedent for a number of other codepages, so the result may be imnportant in that respect. If transwikification occurs there may be need for assistance in the process possibly with some scripting involved. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is aware of a plan and instructions applicable for migrating something like a set of codepages to wikibooks then please share them here. Because of number of pages involved automation or perhaps semi-automation or tool-assist is probably advisable. For the case of codepages should a Transwikification consensus be reached (and its a pain in the butt if it is) a fag-packet plan A might be:

• Identifify thesetsets of codepages to be transferred to e.g. WikiBooks. (A set might be EBCDIC, Microsoft?, HP? ...)
• Determine a WikiBook style/design.
• Review set for commonsense (in case of a split of some to be transferred and some not)
• For each set of CodePages to be Transwikified (e.g. EBCDIC)

• Indentify any dependent templates and resolve how to handle any discrepencies on wikibooks.

• This might e.g. require transwikifying those templates first.
• This might involve modifying the page prior to export via a temporary location to expand/reformat a template

• Import code pages to transwiki import area on Wikibooks.
• Create a Wikibook: (Likely a combined main and contents index)
• Move pages to subpage of the Wikibook.
• Test and checkout Wikibook for consistency.
• When Wikibook and subpages curated and showing in search engines compare against WikiPedia for successful and complete transfer
• Remove pages from Wikipedia replacing with soft links to WikiBooks where necessary

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)]]

Some References:Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• WP:TRANSWIKI (Historical) (But see :WP:RBI also)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki (This is defunct)
• Wikibooks:WB:RFI
• [8] Specific version of WikiBooks:RFI

Hello, I'm Murley, an employee of TomTom, here on behalf of the company to request changes to the article under the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest.

As a paid employee, I will never edit the article myself. 

I left a more detailed note on the TomTom Talk page, but in short, I'm hoping an editor can review my request to trim the article of excess technical and unsourced information. I'm happy to answer any questions or approach differently, if editors prefer. Thank you! Murley from TomTom (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering#Missing section or article: (extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective.

Mentioning it here since it involves things like LAN and PC cabling information (and where to put it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if someone(s) could look at Draft:Aspose.BarCode and give the article editor some feedback (@Alexandr.gavriluk:). I declined it because of neutrality but that seems to have been dealt with. Some of the feedback, however, may have been incorrect since I looked at other articles in this topic area and saw that there were indeed example sections of code - something I thought shouldn't be in the article. This could really benefit from someone more familiar with computing and code articles taking a look, especially when it comes to notability since I don't really have a lot of experience in this area. I would definitely appreciate it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added a diagram and description of the AfC process. While ReaderofthePack has been focused on tone and other content issues, notability is typically the primary focus for AfC reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm proposing the List of filename extensions articles be cleaned up aggressively. Please see Talk:List of filename extensions#Cleanup and Criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mura#Another meaning. We seem to be missing an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Per @Scottywong closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 I am setting up this section for initial discussion of the subproject to get the EBCDIC character encodings transwiki'd and stood up in a WikiBook. While I was in favour of keep the consensus of the AfD is it must be removed from WikiPedia and migratrated, with a WikiBook likely the favoured target. I am minded EBCDIC is but one of several character encodings that will likely go through this process, viewing Template:Character encodings gives perhaps some idea of the scope.

• As hinted repeated by Barkeep49 but seemingly unnoticed by any Transwiki Supporter an easy win in the project is to get the supporting templates transwikied (via RFI) and then stood up as templates on WikiBooks.
• Its also important to have a structure for the WikiBook. While EBCDIC is obvious my preference is to create a WikiBook for all character encodings, provisionally to be called B:Character Encodings. My thoughts on the basic structure are:

:Book: Character Encodings<br/>
::Intro/TOC pages
:::Howto pages
::::Tables/
:::::EDBCIC/
::::::Code page 875
::::::Code page 876
::::::....
:::::DOS 
::::::....
:::::MSWIN
::::::....

• Plan and glue it together.

I anticate some automaton either on wiki or off wiki for some of this and I anticipating using user Bigdelboy rather than by regular Djm-leighpark for some of this. Thankyou. Bigdelboy (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Update: The "easy win" of standing up the code page table support templates has proved more of a yomping slog but I believe they are now sort of stood up. As far as I can tell transwikied EBCDIC code pages dont seem to have history which is a sort of CWW issue. I've been pressing at getting these templates stood up ... my RL currently remains disrupted and I will be likely forced to try to recover than in the second half of the month; and it may look as though progress on this suddenly slows as I try to recover RL and while I am examining the code pages and developing automation; this might not be obvious in WikiPedia edits. Progress is now really recorded and discussed at B:Character Encodings. Thankyou. Bigdelboy (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gschizas, matthiaspaul: Observing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 I see different naming standards for the EBCDIC articles. I think I note in particular Gschizas created Code page 875 as EBCDIC 875 but it was renamed by matthiaspaul [9] (assuming I have it right. Can I have a reasoning for the difference standards and at least suggest a naming scheme for use on WikiBooks. Give me a story please. Thankyou.23:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

with no feedback I intend to use a consistent renaming scheme ... probably based on "EBCDIC xxx" adapted as necessary. I may choose to use "code page" as part of each page name depending on which side of bed I arise on the relevant day. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC) (Bigdelboy (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC))

Following the good faith deletion of the code pages by the closer (see their talk page for details) I am abandoning work on this project unless a last stand DRV I may raise succeeds in allowing the pages to remain undeleted for longer. All other code pages are now eligible for deletion (they were before but it might have been inapropriate to raise it while this project was active) and may be bundle nominated for deletion, possibly my Bigdelboy account. If anyone else wishes to take this up feel free to contact me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thanks for your efforts. The content has been deleted. Like may things Wikipedia, things that seem like they should be easy enough turn out to be daunting. I see the following possible ways forward:

1. Work to get the deletion discussion reopened. I specifically question Scottywong's conclusion that the discussion demonstrated a strong consensus that the material does not belong on Wikipedia. I count 9 keep votes and 10 other votes. Of the others, only 3 are clean delete opinions, the others were assuming to one degree or another that the material would be transwikified.
2. Find some other place online that this information already exists and add clear external links to Code page and friends. The existing external links (many patchy Wayback links) do not appear to be particularly helpful.
3. Let it go. This stuff is of limited current value and many Wikipedians are bent on curating the encyclopedia to remove content like this they see as cruft. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: I have chosen to leave this down for a bit as it is not the good RL time for me to raise this. In fact September so far has seen me simply discussion/watchlist react on WP; though I have initiated a couple of drafts from fallout of same; mainly intending to create a simple stub into mainspace and leave it at that. I still think its likely I'm raising a DRV at some point within the next 2 to 8 weeks; but I've other stuff I think I'm best doing first. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I just made some fairly feeble efforts to make these two pages aware of each other:

• VLSI Project
• Mead & Conway revolution

The VLSI Project, as well as Mead's and Conway's contributions to VLSI design and synthesis was a pretty big deal in the history of computer science.

The VLSI Project page, in particular, now includes a citation, which I just added moments ago, to a 300 page book from the National Academies Press (1999) which details much of the whole saga.

With all this material, Wikipedia's account of this important history chapter could be so much better than it now is. But I'm pretty ignorant in this area, being far more on the software/embedded side of the fence, and it's too much synthesis for me to bite off, so I can only drop a note here that there's a large margin for improvement in these overlapping articles. — MaxEnt 02:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree?--Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I object. Memory safety is [A] not a defining characteristic of a computer language, [B] something that can and does happen in hardware instead of software, and [C] is heavily dependent upon the operating system and CPU.

not a defining characteristic of a computer language: The first three refs in our Memory safety article talk about writing memory-sace C code or using a compiler or other tool that adds memory-safety to C. On the other hand, any supposedly "memory safe" program that is running at the highest privilege level (on processors and OSs that support privilege levels) and has an inline assembler can clobber any memory location.

Something that can and does happen in hardware in many cases Memory protection prevents the most "memory unsafe" code from screwing up anything but itself, and even the most "memory safe" language has the ability to create programs that crash.

Heavily dependent upon the operating system and CPU: Give me a version of any supposedly "memory safe" language ported to run on MS-DOS on a 8088, and I will write you a program that can corrupt any part of memory. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are getting confused with hardware memory protection. What I mean is programming language memory protection. Please, see Memory safety. For example, with Java (programming language) you cannot have buffer overflows, but with C (programming language) you can using the same computer and operating system for both.--Jcarlosmartins (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well the categories were created, but with nothing in them. So they could be deleted after a week if unused, or CFD'd if unwise to have. In the meantime I restored the categories as they are clearly intended to be kept and are not test pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have pages called Memory-safe programming or Memory-unsafe programming to talk about issues and implementations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "For example, with Java (programming language) you cannot have buffer overflows, but with C (programming language) you can using the same computer and operating system for both" that's not true. You are describing an aspect of the compiler, not the language. A C compiler can be written that cannot have buffer overflows, but the performance would suck. A Java implementation can in theory have buffer overflows, but why would anyone create such a thing? It does happen by accident, though, and when discovered requires a fix. See

• Integer and Buffer Overflow Vulnerabilities in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) "unpack200" JAR Unpacking Utility May Lead to Escalation of Privileges,
• Java Buffer Overflow with ByteBuffer (CVE-2020-2803) and Mutable MethodType (CVE-2020-2805) Sandbox Escapes, and
• Twenty years of Escaping the Java Sandbox.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea makes sense. The vulnerabilities you cite are implementation bugs: the Java language specification asserts that bounds checks are done and gives an informal semantics for them [10]. We can talk of the language having memory safety properties that the implementation fails to satisfy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

An issue with the proposed categorisation is that "memory safety" is not a simple dichotomy, but a family of safety properties with sometimes unclear applicability. For an example, is Ada memory safe? It allows pointers to be used after they are freed, so apparently not, but it goes out of its way to make it possible to handle such situations in a safe way; Java's memory safety guarantees owe as much to Ada as they do to Lisp-like languages. Is Haskell memory safe? One of the memory safety issues listed at the article page is heap exhaustion, and Haskell does not have a good story to tell here.

I think this indicates at least that a list would serve better than categories: it allows us to group together languages that share similar storage models and it makes it possible to attach qualifications and sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This MIMO-related article is too technical/niche for me to make heads or tails of, but it needs some cleanup help if anyone here is familiar with the subject. (Also posting this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Telecommunications). ~EdGl! 04:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello computing gurus. If anyone is familiar with Zero Trust Networks, I think the article could use some love. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Computing editors: I am looking for editors interested in computing to review a request at Talk:Internet Society. I proposed updates to the article's History section. The draft removes content that is either unsourced or relies solely on primary sources; adds sourcing where possible; eliminates some redundancy; and adds new content. I work at the Internet Society, so I have a conflict of interest that I've previously disclosed. Can anyone help? Thank you. Neville at Internet Society (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InnerSloth 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/InnerSloth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Right cite (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Internet#Request for comment: should "internet" be capitalized as a proper noun?
There's some debate there about the difference between "the Internet" and "an internet", about what a proper name is, and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT#NEWS policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in the move discussion at Talk:C18_(C_standard_revision)#Requested_move_26_October_2020, regarding whether the WP:COMMONNAME of the current C standard revision is C17 or C18. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Rosetta@home 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. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm a contributor from the French wikipedia, and while working on the french version of Jeff bezos I found something that bothers me: it seems in the Jeff Bezos article that most of the early life section uses "Jeff Bezos: Amazon.com Architect" as a source. However, it seems that this source doesn't have much notoriety, and that some of the information on the article are contradictory with the book "The everything store" from Brad Stone, senior executive editor of global technology at Bloomberg News. Those information differences ranges from age of the mother to the fact that he was in fact not abandoned, which are information of great interest for the article.

I'd like to know what to do with this, this is a labeled article so the information should be reliable, but this doesn't seems to be the case. I think that most of this sections is wrong, at least based on what can only be a more reliable source that what is currently used

Ywats0ns (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here willing to contribute in articles related to computing. What are the articles that need working on?Wziki421 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wziki421:, Here's a list of articles associated with our project that have been assessed as high importance but are rated as just getting started quality wise. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be delete or fixed. Please ping me if you go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting enough, current Amiga version is a port from Linux to the X Window enviroment AmiCygnix. I think I can add some references. There is a short 1/2 page article in Amiga Format 113 (August 1998, pp. 47-48) and 1 1/2 page review in Total Amiga 15 (Summer 2003, pp, 39-40) - though I´m not sure about RS status of the later one. There is also a 1 page review of the AmiCygnix version in the Amiga Future 98 (September/October 2012, p. 23) and some short news on amiga-news.de. I expect similar coverage in the Linux related media (eg. this LinuxFormat/TuxRadar piece from 2009: [11] ). I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (probably during this weekend). Pavlor (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! This submission - Draft:Ontotext GraphDB - has been sitting in the Articles for Creation project since December 2019 after being resubmitted. It was originally declined due to COI and tone. The subject is far out of my wheelhouse so I'm hoping someone here can review it, or at least tell me if we should accept or reject it and if the latter, why. Thank you everyone! Missvain (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It was declined. There's just not enough evidence of notability in the article or in the world. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Please visit Talk:Rational Software/Archives/2021#Edit war to help resolve a question about coverage of Rational Software products. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am looking for editors to review a fairly straightforward request at Talk:Citrix Systems to update the infobox and Operations section on the company's behalf. I originally posted the request in September. Since there has been no response to the request in nearly three months, I wanted to see if WikiProject Computing editors could take a look and update the page if they agree with the suggestions. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I was highly surprised to see that CNNs are listed as low importance. For comparison, artificial neural network and logistic regression are listed as high importance and differentiable neural computer is listed as mid importance. We do not appear to have a project-specific importance ranking, so using the general definition for Wikipedia we see that a "high importance subject" is defined as "subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." "Mid importance" is defined as "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." I think that CNNs should be at least considered mid importance, as everyone in the world who works in machine learning knows what it is. It definitely doesn't fit the definition of low importance which is "Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article." Stellaathena (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Promoted to Mid importance. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been unsourced for 15 years. Let's get rid of it or fix it. Ping me either way, okay? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: There are a lot of brief mentions in sources supporting this. I assume at least some of them are WP:CIRCULAR. Even if they all are, deleting won't fix that at this point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for deletion review of Purple Numbers (now a redirect).  « Saper // @talk »  21:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just letting people know that I've listed Power Mac G4 Cube at peer review. I'd appreciate any comments and input from this wiki project on the article, if you have time. Thanks! Wikipedia:Peer review/Power Mac G4 Cube/archive1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021 - Online and global about trade unions and technology ~ Shushugah (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this page look like an advertisement?

With the WP:REFBOMB I can't tell if the product is even notable or not.

Anyone familiar enough with that industry to know if the topic is unquestionably notable (or for that matter, unquestionably not notable)?

Am I the only one that sees this as being a bit too promotinal in tone? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, it's being directly, heavily edited by a paid contributor. He's posting updates of what he's done on the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I saw that. He has a pending draft article which "on its face" has similar "looks like an ad, WP:REFBOMB" issues, which is what drew me to this article in the first place. My questions still stand. Does the page look like an ad? Is the topic clearly notable or clearly not notable? I'm considering nominating it for deletion but if it's clearly notable I won't and if it's "neither clearly notable nor not notable" I'll research it more before nominating it for deletion. If I don't nominate it and I'm not the only one that thinks it reads like an ad, I'll put a cleanup template on the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, there are a lot of hits for this in a Scholar search. It appears to be an important research tool so likely notable. I agree that the article is written using (bad) marketing language. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, any chance you guys to help out on this ? I believe it will be quite important in order to scale up the carbon sequestration effort (which may, if done sufficiently reduce climate change and thus also its detrimental effects). Talk:Carbon_credit#Missing_info_on_carbon_credit_production-related_software_and_online_tools --Genetics4good (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I did some rewrite, but there are several unreferenced parts (hard to get sources: this software was mostly covered in accounting or Lotus related magazines, which aren´t online; general computing magazines available online offer only short news and few reviews). Pavlor (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Any ideas? Can take about 10 suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegreen1713 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Some suggestions: ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Category:Computing articles needing expert attention
• Stubs of high importance to the project
• Start-class articles of high importance to the project

I have nominated Acid2 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. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I’m hoping a member of this group can help out with a few changes I’ve proposed to improve the Cloudflare article at Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Request Edits February 2021. I have a conflict of interest so would like an independent editor to evaluate the proposed edits. Thanks! Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Current discussion at reference desk seeking a refresh of a section in an article: link. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --Gryllida (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

deletion discussion

Any interest? Would think so, at least among some of you, since you follow this page hehehe. Would love to say more, but... I shouldn't as I’ve been warned for canvassing! However I’ve chosen not be silenced to complete the notification of all potentially interested or pertinent parties. You can even reverse the ensuing consensus, if you like. Go and have your voices heard, whatever those opinions may be.... Ema--or (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. The discussion above is over, but in the spirit of error-/self-correction - was going do it yesterday, but wp s'times needs to be removed in headspace - (as done elsewhere) decided to address this forum as well. Please note that "silenced" was not a spellcheck mistake, although I wish it was. Feel to replace the "-ced" with a t. Sorry for any potential offence, thanks (to any&all talk contributors) and goodbye (at least for now). Greetings, Ema--or (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Im thinking about editing and article about Keyboard Computers and I was wondering if someone could take a look at a few references I picked out? Thanks.

https://www.pcgamer.com/a-look-back-at-the-weird-terrible-keyboards-of-70s-and-80s-pcs/ https://gizmodo.com/the-raspberry-pi-400-is-a-70-computer-built-inside-a-k-1845548285 https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/this-keyboard-has-an-entire-computer-inside-story-7cqysRN1NdXQDeRsHcSiTO.html

HadenKarshner (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably only issue would be due weight (giving article space to cherry-picked non-notable computers). I also recommend to use older sources for then understanding of the computer types (eg. InfoWorld, Volume 4, Number 30, 2 August 1982, p. 19; available on Google Books). Pavlor (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We have articles on information technology and on high tech, but we don't really have an article on "tech" as a business sector. Might it useful to develop something that is more focused on the industry as a whole, rather than on particular technologies?--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the article Information and communications technology and do you think its discoverability or content could change? Shushugah (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: That particular concept seems to mix industry, development and even edicational issues, though I'm not very familiar with it. Information and communications technology#ICT sector in the OECD seems the section most relevant to industrial issues, though it doesn't seem very discoverable. I guess it would be best if there was a proper high-quality IT-related article in Category:Industries (economics).--Pharos (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Delrina 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. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Does not meed General Notability Guidelines

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. 4E616D65 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians of project Computing. JSON_Meta_Application_Protocol might need some rewrite. See jmap.io for more info on the protocol. If some of you want to take a look at it, that would be great :) .

I was pointed at your project by another Wikipedian in Talk:JSON Meta Application Protocol. I already asked in WikiProject Internet, but it just got archived [12] Jaudriga (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

An article that been involved with (TYPO3 ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Neos (content management)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated NeXT 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 HumanxAnthro (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Having just reverted some minor vandalism at 8-bit computing, I have to admit that the vandal was correct about their assessment, just wrong about the means to notify it. This lead of this article (and of 16-bit computing, which has a virtually identical opening sentence) is seriously in need of attention by someone from this wikiproject, please. Surely it can be written in English and in such a way that a "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" might make some sense of it from a standing start. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are similar problems in a bunch of similar articles. See {{N-bit}} for a list. ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:E-book#Requested move 16 April 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see an IP from Turkey Special:Contributions/176.88.31.134 making changes to a number of Microsoft Windows articles. Can someone who knows about these things check the edits out? Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:

• DACAPO
• Microscope image processing
• Music information retrieval
• 14 articles primary about other disciplines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please help me expand the article IPad Pro (5th generation) so that it can qualify GA? It meant a lot to me. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Information technology articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Peaceray (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Desktop computer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Features new to Windows XP#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for History of IBM magnetic disk drives to be moved to History of IBM Direct access storage devices. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

IP address blocking 489,211 16,307 Start--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

these pages Out-of-order execution and Scoreboarding are quite low quality (incomplete) yet are an absolutely fundamental part of computer science and of computing history. i will be improving them over the next few weeks, in an incremental fashion. do note that this is an extraordinarily complex part of computer science with very few people outside of NDA'd industry actually properly understanding it and being able to talk about it Lkcl (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

nope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1024583348

i'm terminating future involvement and contributions.

i specifically stated i will be improving the pages *incrementally*. this usually means "write lines, re-read them, think what references can be found and add them".

i'm not in the slightest bit interested in having to hunt through massive reversions to restore large amounts of work, and i certainly don't have time to get into edit wars.

all this person had to do was put "citation needed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have undone the reversion by ~aidqsueef. ~Kvng (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks. they also actually deleted entire (existing) paragraphs where i had merely changed some of the word, which was the other reason i was rather annoyed. i'll return to this page later, currently doing vector processing Lkcl (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, I have drafted an update for the OnlyFans article to share with the Wikipedia community for consideration: Talk:OnlyFans#History_updates. The draft updates stats, brings OnlyFans' non-adult entertainment into focus, adds notable users, highlights the impact of COVID-19 on the company's growth, and adds a small amount of detail on the soft launch of OFTV and the creation of a creative fund for UK musicians to the "History" section. Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing, I am proposing these changes for peer review instead of editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

i'm genuinely curious, what does this have to do with the Computing Project? have i missed something? Lkcl (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

created a new page permute instruction because amazingly six separate pages independently referred to it, and it's just never been created. it needs attention! it was a stub only this morning and needs the usual gubbins like a refs, see also, blah blah Lkcl (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

arg, arg, this page is falsely claiming that bitmanipulation is the sole exclusive property of Intel and AMD! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_manipulation_instruction_set

the page itself is extremely good... it just makes the mistake of claiming that the *only* ISA with bitmanipulation is x86.

due to the high quality of the content (and its exclusive and comprehensive focus on x86) i recommend it be moved to "x86 bitmanipulation instructions" or somesuch and a new page started about *general* bitmanipulation instruction sets, best probably done as a disambiguation page. "for x86 bitmanip instructions see blah, for riscv bitmanip instructions see blah for Power ISA bitmanip instructions see blah" Lkcl (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that i am currently developing a Vector processor, with the knowledge on Cray and others being in my "working set" i thought i'd document some of it, add references, update the assembly examples, add a list of features and definitely clarify the mistaken assumption and confusion "SIMD != Vector" which, sigh, keeps coming up. An independent read/review would be appreciated at some point, please bear in mind i work incrementally, usually adding sentences, saving so it is not lost, then tracking down references and adding them. page Vector processing Lkcl (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ok found quite a lot of references, some of them fascinating, like the original 1977 cray-1 hardware manual, i mean, wow. i think though, really, the article could have an "importance" category added, now, which i will recommend as "top" due to the strategic and historic value as well as the power savings over SIMD. i mean, come on, we're talking *Cray-I supercomputer* here :) Lkcl (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

found out how to request review, started one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Vector_processor/archive1 Lkcl (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lkcl: Primary sources such as the cray-1 hardware manual need to be used carefully. See WP:PSTS. Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry breaking up the paragraph here, putting this reply in at the context point, i note " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access t"

given that this is a 55 year old Technical Manual where historically we're lucky to even have access to it at all, given that Cray now only exists in the form of a shell of its former self (sold to Hewlett Packard) i think it's ok to use. i mean, this was like an iconic extremely exclusive system, heavily restricted access. it's not like today's computers where you can buy an arduino for $1.50! Lkcl (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

another thing: it's a Technical Reference ISA Manual. getting something, even the slightest detail, factually wrong, would have been catastrophic. programs simply would not work, rendering their multimillion dollar hardware useless. like saying "5 is the same number as 2", math doesn't work. publishing false facts like that would have been catastrophic for Cray's reputation. overall i'd say ISA Specifications like this (of notable ISAs), which contain "lists of facts" (interestingly, which are therefore not Copyrightable), should be an exception. Lkcl (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would give a Mid importance rating for this topic. High is for popular and general topics. Top is for essential technology. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Importance. Vector processing was an important step leading us to where we are today but my understanding is that current applications are niche. ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

hi Kvng thanks for chipping in here. Vector processing capability is the basis of every GPU on the planet, in every smartphone. Vector processing is also in Intel AVX512 and in ARM SVE2. the number of processors on this planet with Vector processing capability literally measures in the billions. i would not be recommending "Top" lightly and without good reason. Lkcl (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lkcl, your vector processor basis is not supported by the current contents of Graphics processing unit. The only mention there goes the other way, actually - GPUs used to perform vector processor functions in niche applications. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

urrr not another one. i haven't got round to that one. i just updated Flynn's Taxonomy and the SIMD page, to reflect actually what's in Flynn's 1972 IEEE paper (really grateful to guy harris for finding that one). that's really why all these inter-related pages are such a mess: no mention at the fundamental level (the taxonomy), so they all have the same misinformation. it also doesn't help that the language has changed in the past 56 years. sigh. ok i'll take a look and get to it when i can. i have most of the references in my head now. Lkcl (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ok i did a quick bit full skimthrough and apart from one grammatical error my opinion is that the page is very good: informative about the history, contains relevant references to APIs (now that i think about it though i didn't see prominent mention of Khronos Group, Vulkan or OpenCL, it did mention CUDA though). there is a complete lack of detail on the *internals* of GPUs though. this is hardly surprising since these are paranoid companies with trigger-happy patent lawyers. oh i did find a Carnegie Mellon academic coursework slide deck that is *really* good, and has the diagrams necessary to demonstrate a direct correspondance with Flynn's taxonomy, showing that modern GPU === SIMT. it'son the Vector Processor page "external links", i haven't got round to doing anything more with it yet.

summary, then: the page on GPUs is at a broad informative level extremely good, and i'm not sure it helps to start editing it or move some of the technical "inner workings" to it that are currently in the VP page. it's... complicated, basically. Lkcl (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ok yep found / noticed the list of APIs, wow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#APIs hm Vulkan could be more prominent, in the history section, but it's ok. i did add a link to the GPU internals section. this is about as far as i think it should go, really. beyond that it interrupts the flow of what is otherwise a really good page.

to answer your question (concern) directly, unfortunately you have to jump through some hoops. first examine Flynn's 1972 paper, then compare it against the Carnegie coursework slides. then look at MIAOW (by the Vertical Research Group)for confirmation, and finally if your brain hasn't exploded or lost the thread it's possible to deduce the answer. with these billion dollar companies being paranoidly secretive it's about the best that can be done. Lkcl (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry, another thought: look at what the MIAOW team say about what they developed: they say "this is not a GPU". they developed a SIMT Engine, they did *not* develop a GPU. A GPU comes with a ton of trappings: Texture opcodes, pixel formats, PCIe interface, Video HDMI drivers. the actual Vector Processing engine is *one* (rather large, by silicon area) part of that. the GPU page covers all of that, and the history, and blah blah (doing so very well).

now, what it *might* be appropriate to do is, to add a new section "Inside GPUs". however, as the MIAOW team describe in their research, details are pretty sketchy due to the secrecy, paranoia, patents, and the insane amount of money involved (NVIDIA buying ARM for 40 billion). here, things can be mentioned like the not-GPLGPU, Jeff Bush's Nyuzi, Vertical Research Group's MIAOW, ORGFX, and at some point when its 3D features reach notability, the LibreSOC project (which is what i am working on, it is about 1-2 years out from having 3D GPU capability that's notable for wikipedia). Lkcl (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at DF-224 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it appears to no longer be in service, or "meaningfully exist", per MOS:TENSE. It occurs to me that we should have a category such as Category:Decommissioned computers for verifiably decommissioned computers like this. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a new discussion on the Talk page of Cloudflare, the ISP, about three issues that were looked at by one editor as part of a conflict of interest review. Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Further Discussion for Proposals June 2021 I think the discussion would benefit from multiple editors weighing in. Thank you. Ryanknight24 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Jerry Yang (co-founder of Yahoo). Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Software categories is currently minor, lightly edited article (unassessed, unknown importance). The page needs a bit of general reworking. But currently, the two main areas are by copyright status (license type) and market categories, which offers only Horizontal and Vertical. I think another division should be by platform (e.g., mobile, desktop, server, embedded, etc.) Any thoughts? I don't have much experience working on wikiprojects or collaborating on edits but would like to get going on it. Zatsugaku (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Came across Toasternet, a new page WikiProject members may enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Gaming computer to be moved to Gaming PC. Since you had some involvement with Gaming computer, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). SkyWarrior 02:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Perl, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Aircorn (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Server-embedded Infrastructure Software (SEIS) needs to be checked by a topic specialist. Is it firstly a notable subject and is the draft compliant with the minimum standards for an article - neutrality, referencing, etc? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No subject matter expert here, but from my POV, the article lead is too long and much of the article is unsourced. I recommend to write shorter (and well sourced) article first and then expand it with new sources/content. Pavlor (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

AFC review is not about artcile quality. We are trying to determine whether the proposed topic is notable and whether the draft is a reasonable starting point for a new article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telecommuting#Requested move 3 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Requested move 27 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Draft:Riak? There is, I believe, already a an existing article about the same subject at Riak; so, a draft for a possible new article isn't really needed. The main contributors to the daft a new/newish accounts who might not realize that they can just try and improve the existing article and don't need to create a new one to replace it. Perhaps there's a way to merge some of the draft's content into the existing article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had a very quick glance at this. It appears to be duplicate of the main article with identical contributions history on the main page and talk page. This isn;twhat I'd technically expect to see. I think the drafts G6 eligible BUT there MAY be a system level error error due to e.g. a failed partial draftication move ( a pure guess). I'd really think a technical level check should be seen (but I may be being stpid and paranoid as I have to be out the house in 10 minutes and I'm still in my pyjamas and I'm very rushed). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Looks like JosephPearl created the draft from a copy of Riak. It was then improved by a couple other editors. It does look like there may be some useful improvements in the draft but it is all a bit suspicious. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Yes that's from me, I created the draph page as I'm quite new to this & wasn't quite sure on the best way to contribute. Would be happy to move it over here. We noticed it was significantly out of date, so were working on updating it all to include recent developmentsJosephPearl (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

JosephPearl, great, before you start, please WP:DISCLOSE any conflict of interest. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi JosephPearl. Thanks for clarifying things a bit. Generally, the draft namespace is for working on new articles for Wikipedia and not for working on improvements to existing articles; it's usually better to do that kind of thing is often in your user sandbox instead. In addition, if there are problems with an existing article, it's usually better to try and fix them whenever possible and preserve as much as possible as opposed to simply trying to re-write an article from start to finish. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and an article might have had quite a number of different contributors over the years; so, newer editors are sort of expected to build upon and improve what they started except in cases where the issues are so serious that fixing them isn't really a viable option. An article is intended to be encyclopedic in nature, which means content isn't necessarily discarded or removed because it's now outdated; instead, it's better to try and find a way to retain the existing content, revised as needed, and incorporate the newer content into the article so that things blend together.

Another thing I noticed from your post is the your use of the words "we" and "were". The way you use them seems to imply a couple of things: (1) you're somehow connected to the company and (2) you're working with others to try and "update" the article. If you're connected to the company in some way, please carefully read through WP:COI and WP:PAID to make sure you understand some very important things about Wikipedia. I also suggest you read through WP:OWN, WP:VNT, and WP:NOT as well. While it's always good for Wikipedia articles to be accurate and up-to-date whenever possible, it's more important for articles to be reliably sourced (particularly with WP:SECONDARY sources) so that any claims or statements made in the article can be reasonably verified. Wikipedia is not really intended to promote a subject and isn't really interested too much in what it has to say about itself because that's the role of the subject's official websites and social media accounts and Wikipedia articles don't "belong" to their subjects; Wikipedia is more interested in secondary reliable sources have been saying and writing about a subject and how to incorporate such things into the article in a neutral manner. If you're connected to the Riak in some way, then it would be better for you to propose changes to the article at Talk:Riak as explained in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement to give other editors a chance to assess them in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you try to plow ahead and do things directly yourself, you might find yourself having problems with other editors and any changes you make being undone for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood. We've added relevent COI to the talk;riak page and will propose changes there.JosephPearl (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanded the draft as a part of my monitoring of random drafts. Could you please proofread for notability and clarity and share feedback. Thanks! --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 22:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate some wider input on the proposed merge of Tesla Dojo into Tesla Autopilot from 20 August 2021. Reason: I don't think Tesla Dojo is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I propose merging into Tesla Autopilot (or maybe History of Tesla, Inc.) instead, at least until we wait and see if the project ultimately gains notability over time. The chip is yet to be released, and all of the sources are simply echoing Tesla's PR announcement yesterday. And of course Tesla has announced numerous projects over the years that have failed to come to fruition: plans to produce a COVID-19 vaccine[13], battery swapping[14], robotaxis[15], Model S Plaid Plus[16], etc. WP:NOTNEWS says "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Discussion can be found >>>Here<<<. Thanks Stonkaments (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I've jusr created an article of FORCEDENTRY, a major hack of pretty much the whole Apple endpoint ecosystem that has just been revealed. I'd appreciate any help that other editors can give to improve it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, strong start ~Kvng (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi WP Computing,

I stumbled upon this category of associated pages at CopyPatrol earlier today and am curious what y'all think about it. I doubt that any (or at least more than very few) of these are individually notable, and many of them currently just look like non-notable award/event cruft that contains unnecessary extlinks, is promotional, and/or entirely uses primary sources. I'm not sure what the best plan of action regarding these is -- I think possibly creating one article encompassing all of them a la something like this might be the best plan of action, but I'm not sure. Any opinions?

Thanks! eviolite (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(Not to mention the wildly inconsistent naming scheme!) eviolite (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think one would have to take them on a case-by-case basis. SIGGRAPH is huge and their conference is famous in the computer graphics and movie animation and special effects communities. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject members. Last month I posted a request to the Sisense Talk page with changes to clean up the article's History section. I have attempted to improve sourcing, remove un-encyclopedic wording, and generally make this section read more like a history of the company (rather than a list of funding round announcements). I am refraining from making any edits myself because I work for Sisense and have a COI. I'm trying to make this update the right way but haven't gotten any feedback or assistance yet. My request is here if you can help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sisense#History_request Thank you. Kat at Sisense (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just created a disambiguation page at LPQ, one of the entries is the lpq command but I'm not sure I've done a great job of explaining it. If someone could take a look that would be appreciated, also feel free to change the link if there is somewhere better than print queue. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Floating point types lists floating-point formats or related articles (independent of the programming language), not floating-point types. So, IMHO, this category should be renamed to Category:Floating-point formats (at the same time, use a hyphen for "floating-point"). The current description

A list of all floating point primitive data types in programming languages.

doesn't match the list either. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Would some members mind looking at Nvidia GTC and assessing it? It appears to have been a redirect to Nvidia#GPU Technology Conference until quite recently, but someone has tried to flesh it out into a stand-alone article. The editor who re-created the article has a declared a COI, but this might even be a case of WP:PAID editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just completed a relatively lengthy conversion of many category links from microcomputer to their more specific categories of, for example, 16-bit or VLIW. Please take a moment to check my work, and I am especially curious if SHARC and TigerSHARC are in the right place now, or should be DSP-related? And what about Tensor? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I've renamed the APC III page to APC series after adding information about the original APC. I'm not sure how to deal with the ja N5200 [ja] vs. en APC series situation; they're essentially pages about the same computer series, but the Japanese and international versions of those computers. Maybe someone can have a look at this and figure out what to do. (There's a section on the talk page about the cross-linking issue.) Cjs (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Finite-state machine with datapath has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The notability of this concept is unclear. I propose that this information be merged into datapath.

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. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've recently added List of cassette tape data storage formats, but I'm not happy with the title. Can anyone recommend a better one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The only alternative I can see would be "List of data storage formats used by cassette tapes" but I'm not sure that's any better... DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I guess my concern is that it's not really list-like, at least in terms of what the wiki sees as a list. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the current title, and IMO it's not outside the range of what is considered a list article, at least from my experience looking at other list pages. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hardware for artificial intelligence is a complete and total mess. It claims that memristors(??!!) are specialized AI hardware (the basic electronic component, like a resistor, capacitor, inductor), that Joint Artificial Intelligence Center(??!!) is specialized AI hardware. And the author proposes to merge all sorts of articles into the target on the talk page, with merge banners appearing at the candidate articles, but not on this destination article. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this article reads about 30 years out-of-date. It's a good topic for an article but should cover, for starters, Tensor Processing Units and Graphics processing units for model training. I've added template:expert-subject and lightly edited to consolidate the existing comments at the top of the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Talk page for Sisense, I have made two requests to help fix problems with the History and Technology sections, respectively. As background, editors had tagged the article as needing improvement and I'm trying to address the issues on the page by providing new sourcing and material for review. In both sections, there are sources that don't seem reliable for Wikipedia, and some of the content itself reads jargony or promotional. Can any editors here help? I work for Sisense and have a conflict of interest, which is why I'm asking for help. Thanks! Kat at Sisense (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Article without sources, if someone wants to do something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Socket G2 article it says "rPGA 989 (as shown on the left)" but nothing is shown on the left.

Also, it says "rPGA 989 (as shown on the left) is a socket that can take Socket Socket G1 (rPGA988A) or Socket socket G2 (rPGA988B)". Shouldn't there be redirects from rPGA989 and rPGA988 similar to the redirects at rPGA988A rPGA988B?

Finally, Socket G1 says "there are Socket G/rPGA 989 sockets that can take Socket G1/rPGA 988A or Socket G2/rPGA 988B packaged processors[citation needed]". Is there a source that says this? I found dozens of blog posts from people who have done it, but no official source. --76.216.220.191 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Computerphile: made this new article and I this new article and I think this Community can help improve it. The Duke of Mars (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This article currently has multiple issues. (1) How is the scope of the article different from Technophilia? (2) The entire History section has nothing specifically to do with the word "computerphile". If the scope of the article is just anyone throughout history who might have liked the idea of computing, that scope is too broad. (3) Not clear why we need a separate article on this in the first place. Besides Technophilia we have computer scientist, programmer, hacker, etc.

I would recommend reverting the article back to the redirect. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I never asked for my site and platform to be part of all of this. Im not even sure how it started. I know that it is not what the you all claim the process if gathering data throgh experience and experiment. I spend m9st of my time trying to figure out a way to get some of my fundemental rights back What the problem is you are not looking between the lines. I get that it for technology and building a better infustrutue . I understand that it used to educate the world about security and for eveyone to have internet availability. The protocol runs short. EMBBEDED PLATFORMS ARE NOT BASED ON American freedoms. It a form of Modern day technological slavery. Its is the freedom of our country to have a choice and that is not what is happening here. If that where true why is it emmbeded. Why are there tags and identifying locks. In my case there is no way that i can modify any of the appl8cations 9r certificate or licenses that are on every divice that i own . It wiuld not require wifi finders and repo and code writing timeout and inhuman taticics. I did not agree to be researched on . I did not agree to have my entire life tracked and used by the world . The programer and the w3.org and ianna and ieft dint see the real data . The price i have paid so that the Android systems can be built . THE USER IS FORGOTEN ABOUT . I SEE THAT. you all think you are corosponding with me but you are not. It 8s the programer that is responding as it where me . They have complete control . The control starts with puting licences that can not be modified. Instal8ng open source that can not be modified. Own the domain right and the third party rights.run the enterprise and the organization . Have all the major player running marketing and analytical databases and take over 5he emails and prtend that they are non existing anymore they are active to the administration and secretly still functioning and running in the background. I dont sit on the board i dont get to make any desions . It is all keep under rap and lock and key. It the modernization of technology slavery. Evette anderson. 11/29/2021 131.93.173.57 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Talk page for Sisense, I have made two requests to help fix problems with the History and Technology sections, respectively. As background, editors had tagged the article as needing improvement and I'm trying to address the issues on the page by providing new sourcing and material for review. In both sections, there are sources that don't seem reliable for Wikipedia, and some of the content itself reads jargony or promotional. Can any editors here help? I work for Sisense and have a conflict of interest, which is why I'm asking for help. Thanks! Kat at Sisense (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed we have articles on data compression, disk compression, image compression, Lossy compression , Lossless compression and many more at Category:Data compression. Overall it's fine but I am concerned there whether there there is not some fork-level overlap here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Like you said, there's no obvious problem. Data compression seems to be a well constructed WP:SUMMARY article for the subject. Working on the organization of Category:Data compression might highlight other improvement opportunities. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would expect both Wikipedia:WikiProject Software and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science to be subprojects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing but only the former is. I assume Wikipedia:WikiProject Software concerns itself with practical matters associated with software and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science is for more academic topics but that's just my assumption based on the titles of the projects; the scope statements on the respective project pages are very broad and general. ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

This page only has history up until 2009, and is less detailed than the history section of Dell, making it entirely redundant.

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. SpuriousCorrelation 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with this deletion but only on the condition that the article is carefully and selectively merged into Dell. Much of the info is not contained in Dell, for example, the "list of Dell marketing slogans". On the other hand, I don't mind having a separate history article page, either, if people can improve that instead. Overall I object to deleting this through WP:PROD and I think this deserves to go through WP:AfD. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I have started a Discussion on the matter. SpuriousCorrelation 19:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The AfD has now been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 24#History of Dell by Sdkb. Thankyou & Merry Christmas. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is badly out of date. The sources it cites are 20 years old and the behaviour it describes implies a Windows95 model. It uses the phrase "IBM-PC compatible" (which I doubt I have seen anywhere else in at least ten years or more) multiple times. It could do with a serious spring clean by someone who has experience of at least Windows 10, MacOS X and current Linux distros. Which I don't, otherwise I wouldn't ask. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The vector processor article has numerous problems that I believe can only be fixed by a rewrite. I've outlined some of them at Talk:Vector processor#This article needs to be rewritten. Further review of the vector processor article would be appreciated. HTW217 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was recently reworked by Lkcl. The rewrite you're looking for may be an older version. ~Kvng (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

My concerns pertain to the current version. Consider the following text from Vector processor#Vector instructions:

The vector pseudocode example above comes with a big assumption that the vector computer can process more than ten numbers in one batch. For a greater quantity of numbers in the vector register, it becomes unfeasible for the computer to have a register that large. As a result, the vector processor either gains the ability to perform loops itself, or exposes some sort of vector control (status) register to the programmer, usually known as a vector Length.

The claim that it is a "big assumption" for a vector computer to process ten or more numbers in one batch is problematic. Firstly, what exactly does "processing" mean? What does "one batch" mean? This is not precise language, nor does it use accepted terminology. I think the intended point is "can a vector computer perform ten operations (say, floating-point additions) per clock cycle", or perhaps, "can a vector computer initiate ten floating-point additions per cycle". If this is indeed the case, then the claim is a falsity. Vector computers have no issue with performing many tens of operations concurrently. As an example, each core in the SX-Aurora can perform 192 FLOPS per cycle.

Secondly, the two solutions that are claimed to be a solution for the non-existent problem of limited parallelism in vector computers is meaningless. Vector architectures (generally) do not have a conception of a loop. While it's correct to say that a vector instruction replaces an equivalent scalar loop, this is an intrinsic property of the vector instruction concept; it's not something tacked onto vector instructions, as the text presently states.

Thirdly, the vector length mechanism is not used to overcome the non-existent lack-of-parallelism limitation, as is claimed by the article. It simply exists to handle cases where the length of the vector in the application is shorter than the "natural" vector length of the architecture.

Fourth, the claim that it is unfeasible for vector registers to have more than ten numbers is patently false. The first vector computer with vector registers, the CRAY-1, had 8 registers, each containing 64 elements of 64 bits each. Others have a greater number of registers, each containing a greater number of elements. The present SX-Aurora, for example, has 64 registers, each containing 64 elements of 64 bits each. It also implements register renaming, so its physical register file contains 256 registers.

So what's the solution? Have a clear separation between architecture and organizational issues. Describe how vector architectures support application requirements. In this instance, what a vector instruction is, what scalar code does it replace, what is the vector length, what is its purpose, etc. Then discuss the organizational issues, such as how a vector operation is performed by hardware (all elements go through one pipeline; elements are distributed over multiple pipelines [lanes in modern terminology]). HTW217 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I was suggesting you review the article history and see if the problems you identify exist in the version prior to Lkcl's work. If the older version is better, a WP:REVERT may be in order. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this article, and was surprised to find an article that has a strong - and somewhat controversial - view point: The author obviously hates SIMD as part of an ISA - while I agree from a SW point of view that it can be a hassle, in practice it's much less of a problem than what he is claiming. In most signal processing tasks, the structure and size of the data is well known (and intentionally designed), and therefore it's not a problem to match it to a SIMD processor. And most DSPs have well matched memory access (with scatter/gather functionality) to a local "vector memory" that is capable to fully load/store all data in one step. And we're not talking about 64 Bit here, more typical would be 256 - 1024 Bit. Technically, vector processors and SIMD-capable machines are identical HW anyway for the largest part (registers, execution units, ...) - it's just that in vector machines a wrapper layer in microcode or extra hardware handles the stuff that is otherwise done by the programmer/compiler to support variable length data. If that additional handling can be avoided by design, a SIMD setup is more efficient. If that's not possible, a vector solution is better - depends on the use case. BTW: That's absolutely normal in pretty much all digital signal processors - which are more and more common in µCs and SoCs. Synopsis, Cadence, CEVA, TI and others sell many billions (and no, they and their customers are not stupid). That's why I actually think the old article was better (even though it has its own limitations). 194.39.218.10 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but the limitations of SIMD-enhanced scalar processors are well known in the context of large-scale vector processing. This is something that has been demonstrated in countless studies (such as those by Espasa et al.) and is stated in standard computer architecture and organization textbooks (like CA:AQA). The problem isn't that the article is biased against SIMD-enhanced scalar processors; the problem is that its content is completely misinformed about why SIMD-enhanced scalar processors and vector processors exist in the first place. It's missing context. Describing the limitations of SIMD-enhanced scalar processors, and how these limitations are avoided in vector processors, in an objective manner is not bias. However, it needs to be balanced out, because vector processors, while solving the several issues in SIMD-enhanced scalar processors, have several of their own (like context switching performance). The article as it presently stands, with its unencyclopedic, sometimes pedagogical, sometimes editorializing tone, and numerous digressions and general verbosity is problematic.

By the way, your assertion that SIMD machines don't differ much from vector processors is unfortunate. Vector processors are very different from the typical SIMD-enhanced scalar processor at the architecture, organization, and realization levels. The problem is that most people don't have a detailed understanding of vector processors and see them as merely wider SIMD-enhanced scalar processors (which is very incorrect, and ignores the historical evolution of these two embodiments of Flynn's SIMD category). Also, most vector processors aren't microcoded. Some very old examples from the 1970s were, like the CDC STAR-100 and TI ASC. Some of the Japanese vector processors used micro-coded scalar units, because they reused existing System/370 processors.

I'll remove some of more obviously problematic content, but the rewrite will have to wait (indefinitely) or be performed by somebody else. HTW217 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Workstation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Could you help to fix the 50 or so links to Controller (computing) shown at Disambig fix list for Controller (computing)? This edit converted the article into a disambiguation page. Linking to the dismabiguation page is not helpful to the reader and I would appreciate any help in fixing these links as I do not have the knowledge to do them all.— Rod ^talk 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a similar list of links to Network interface at Disambig fix list for Network interface of articles with similar issues but only 14 entries in that one.— Rod ^talk 15:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BMDFM#Requested move 13 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

A new editor created this article and moved it around to a number of different locations. I'm hoping that some experienced editor knowledgeable about programming languages could look it over. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Could someone PLEASE assesss my 2017 article Machine Identification Code as obviously I cant do it myself ? Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at it, and at first I gave it a C. But after I looked at the criteria, I changed it to B. I didn't see any problems. Also, it is organized very well - I can tell that you thought it through before writing it (not like a hodge-podge from different editors). If someone has a different idea, they can change it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have

• List_of_router_firmware_projects
• Comparison_of_router_software_projects
• List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions
• Comparison_of_firewalls

The last one is the most advanced page (Firewalls). And I can see a difference to "list of router and firewall distributions" with only little parts of repetitions. The first two can be integrated in this page with no loss of information. Lothrien (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've added merge banners and directed discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked briefly all 4 pages and this is my recommendation:

- I wouldn't combine firewalls and router on one page. They are two distinct functionalities and the List of router and firewall distributions mixes them in the table

- Merge List_of_router_firmware_projects and Comparison_of_router_software_projects into List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions

- Exclude all firewalls from List of router and firewall distributions and insert it into Comparison_of_firewalls

- Rename List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions into Comparison_of_router_software

- Update basic and easy obtainable information to make Comparison_of_router_software valuabe again

I would be able to contribute to this effort since I'm familiar with those topics GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page the member list was overhauled to give it meaning again. Of course the old page has been archived. Everyone active here please enter themselves again to the list. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Solid Logic Technology redirects to IBM Solid Logic Technology, but IBM Standard Modular System redirects to Standard Modular System. The latter was reversed today. Shouldn't these be consistent? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, since I wrote this, the other has been redirected in the same way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Google, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 28 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Those should be separated articles (they are redirects now), this in my opinion is very important sice those technologies are something big that emerged in recent years. First there was Web with static HTML, then CSS and JavaScript come, there was server side sripting. And now there are SPA, new thing is SSR ad SSG. They should have their own articles for sure. I've added those sections Server-side scripting and redirects so there is something on the topic and not just blank page. Maybe someone here will be able to make them their own articles. English is not my native language and I'm not that active on En Wiki, that's why I didn't wrote those articles in first place. jcubic (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposed split discussion at Talk:Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max#Split again that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI Template:Terminal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article United States of America Computing Olympiad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable under WP:NONPROFIT: no significant coverage by reliable sources

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. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

John V. Roach, who helped start the personal computer era with the launch of the Tandy TRS-80, has died. Any help with his article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Per this CFD that I recently closed, Category:Virtualization software is becoming a set category specifically for virtualization software, while entries about the topic of virtualization should go into Category:Virtualization. I started moving a few articles into Category:Virtualization, but I'd like to ask if someone with experience about the subject matter can look into this and make sure that the split is proper and complete. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 05:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated List of computer criminals for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Should an image of a dead pigeon be used to illustrate packet loss? Please offer opinions at the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Comparison of free and open-source software licences#Requested move 28 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Virtual threads to Green threads. There is also a draft on Draft:Virtual threads in review. I have nominated the redirect for deletion, because it appears that Green threads were an implementation of Virtual threads, which confuses a subset and a superset. If the redirect is deleted, the draft can be accepted, and the articles can cross-reference each other. Please comment at the RFD, which is at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_6#Virtual_threads. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IEEE 1394#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Broadband, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 11 April 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

This peer review of the History of the World Wide Web could use a third opinion. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see latest discussion is at Talk:History of the World Wide Web#Major rewrite. Whizz40 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've created a {{Mainframes}} template. Anyone can give a feedback on that? Would also appreciate much if someone helps me with linking. Thanks! AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CI/CD:

• Porter, Jackie (2021-11-11). "Changes to GitLab.com public project CI/CD minute quotas". GitLab. Retrieved 4 May 2022.

  "To...protect GitLab.com from cryptomining abuse..."

  this article needs improving...... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I notice that the article at Arc routing has been rated "A" class by the editor who recently did a massive amount of editing on the article. Since that's an extraordinarily uncommon rating, would someone other than the editor knowledgeable on the topic care to have a look and verify if it is actually appropriate? PianoDan (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is B or C class. I changed it to B. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Redmi 1#Requested move 24 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I’m seeking assistance from qualified editors to review COI edit requests I post on the Fortinet article’s Talk page. Will appreciate anyone leaving a comment here saying it’s okay if I ping them in the future for these requests. At the present time there are 2 open requests. Context: Last year Fortinet became aware a undisclosed paid edits warning label had been placed on the article about “Fortinet” in December 2020 after a sock puppet investigation found 2 accounts had made edits in 2018 as part of a broader campaign. Although Fortinet has hired disclosed paid editors in the past, we were not in a position to make uncontroversial reversions to any suspicious edits. Fortinet has been making COI Edit requests and seeking unbiased, disinterested editors to help improve the article in hopes to see the page’s quality improved per the warning label request to ensure that the Wikipedia community trusts the content there again. We’re hoping some of the editors involved with this Wikiproject will assist. Johnwikiwelton (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone got any reliable source citations about the internals of the Truth Social app, which is claimed to use the Soapbox front-end? In particular, I'm wondering if it just acts as a captive web browser for a cloud-hosted Soapbox instance, or whether TMTG actually ported Soapbox's Elixir code to iOS?

Please see my comments on the matter at Talk:Truth Social#Soapbox front end — The Anome (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Leave your thoughts here, please. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:TechnologyOne. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look – these requests have been pending for almost four months, and I'm hoping I've made them as easy/quick to review as possible. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Would this DataPro paper

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/gandalf-pacx-iv.pdf

be suitable for use as a citation for improving the verifiability of the article on the PACXG4ugm (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)?

There is consensus to split Neos (content management) from its current parent article, TYPO3. Unfortunately, neither the current section TYPO3#Neos nor the draft supplied by proposer are based on reliable independent sources. Any support would be very welcome! Felix QW (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems there is already an article Neos Flow. Although I haven't assessed the sources in it, content should probably be merged there. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf/AmIRC, previously at AmIRC, was deleted via AfD and then restored to user space over a decade ago. The user has not edited since 2016. I am wondering if there is a page to which this content could be merged. BD2412 T 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I will adopt that draft. There are probably dozens of reviews/tutorials for AmIRC in Amiga magazines of the late 1990s. Notability is no issue there. Pavlor (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Back in the article namespace. My English is horrible, but I'm sure good people here will anglicize this poor article quite soon. Courtesy note for Jclemens, who moved the deleted article to the user space back in 2011. Pavlor (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks for the ping, but I have no special connection to the article, was just something done as an admin at that time. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:USB 3.0#Requested move 13 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to contribute? Yleventa2 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion whether particular sources are reliable in context at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Editors of this project might be interested in suggestions to update the article about Dan Wagner (a well-known U.K. tech entrepreneur). The proposals are here: Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022. Since I have a COI, an independent editor or editors must review these. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Home page, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 8 August 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Hello! On behalf of HubSpot, I've submitted a request to update the Software and services section. I've proposed specific text additions based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources about some the company's major products, similar to what's already said about HubSpot CRM Free. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and included Template:Request edit, but so far the request has gone unanswered. Might a member of WikiProject Computing be willing to take a look and update the article appropriately? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

After browsing computing related drafts, I dicovered Draft:Compaq IA-1 ("internet appliance" of the early 2000s). After brief research, I think I have enough sources to create a short article. However, this machine is also mentioned in the - mostly unsourced - article about IPAQ (desktop computer) (IA-1/IA-2 are based on this hardware). I wonder, is it better to create a new article for "internet appliance" version of IPAQ, or rewrite existing section in the IPAQ (desktop computer) article? Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is obscure stuff on top of obscure stuff. Best to keep it all in one article for now. You can always WP:SPLIT if that doesn't work out. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like writing about obscure computer related subjects... One article for both versions/form factors is a logical choice. Pavlor (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Catalyst 6500#Requested move 18 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to invite input on a discussion currently taking place on the talk page for the Ada programming languages. I had added disambiguation hatnotes to the pages for Ada and the programming language Agda. My logic is that the two have similar names and can get confused; this happened to me in a discussion with a friend. Another user disagrees that such hatnotes are unnecessary; "WP can't include every possible error". I feel like we've both made reasonable points but there's no common ground, so I'm curious what the computing community thinks. You can weigh in here. Tisnec (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zero-day (computing)#Requested move 26 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

used the majority of computers produced in east germany between 1980 and 1990.

many of which have wikipedia pages. (see draft)

how would one establish notability for it? naturally all the technical documentation mentions it. but it is not like the average Hans had any clue that it existed.

Draft: K1520 bus

looking for guidance on the matter Nowakki (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Johannes explains it best at the draft page. You need coverage of the article subject in reliable sources to establish notability. I will look in my library (I have at least few computer-related books and magazines from the former DDR), if there is something useful. Feel free to remind me later. Pavlor (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

but if there is a computer bus (and also an expansion bus) that was featured in all notable microcomputers of one decade in a country that only had one unified semiconductor sector, then that bus must appear in all reliable sources that dealt with these computers and their extension.

tell me, why is the GSC bus notable? Or the VAXBI bus? Nowakki (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That there are badly sourced articles (relict of an age, when gatekeeping was not that strong as today) is not a good argument for another badly sourced article (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As of your draft, in worst case (if we don't find enough sources) that bus could be mentioned in the article about the manufacturer (VEB Robotron) with a redirect as a search term. Pavlor (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

if you would be so kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VEB_Robotron#K1520_bus_standard

it seems wikipedia does not want me to create a redirect without supervision. Nowakki (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

should i make a draft for the redirect? Nowakki (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your account is not autoconfirmed yet (will be in few hours), then you will be able to make a redirect (or any other new page in the main namespace) yourself, just try it again. Do not turn a draft into a redirect. If you are not sure, how to proceed, I can create that redirect for you (see WP:R for help). Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

if i was to include an Figure from an old service manual from the 1980s of a piece of technology that hasn't been sold for decades, would present that piece of technology in a favorable light (like a museum would) and reasonably can count on the author and designer of that piece of technology to be proud that their creation would be used in this fashion.

in that case can i go ahead with this? Use the Figure and rely on the abuse process to cover the 0.1% chance that there will be a problem? Slippery slope?

in particular it is a timing diagram of the signals and events that happen when a floppy disk controller reads a sector. Not a piece of art or anything. Nowakki (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of question you're asking here. The service manual and its contents would presumably be covered under copyright unless you could prove otherwise. Is that why you're referring to "rely[ing] on the abuse process"? Elizium23 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

nobody would complain Nowakki (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not really the standard we set for ourselves here, nor is it the legal standard, and I think you know that. Elizium23 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

i know that commons gives the option to upload something when the license status is unknown. and it does not take much to play dumb. so i don't know. Nowakki (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say, assuming the figure is not something you can easily recreate, use the figure and provide meaningful commentary regarding it in the article. See WP:FAIRUSE for further details on how to do this. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks Nowakki (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:General Transit Feed Specification#Requested move 21 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Hitachi Data Systems. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I requested a move from Fixed point (mathematics) to Fixed point which is currently a disambiguation page for Fixed point (mathematics), Fixed-point arithmetic, and a few other topics. This move is somewhat controversial as several people have objected that Fixed-point arithmetic precludes Fixed point (mathematics) from being a primary topic. A few months ago a similar move request was closed as "no consensus", so please join in at Talk:Fixed point (mathematics)#Requested move 4 October 2022 so that this discussion can reach a definitive conclusion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Human-in-the-loop § Merger proposal. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This article, Random-access memory, was (rightly) marked High Importance by the defunct Computer hardware task force.

It is sadly in a bit of a mess, with no clear division between the various technologies that carry the RAM moniker as the most pressing issue.

It is currently C-class only, a quality rating I agree with. It just isn't very good - more of a hodge podge of facts than a clearly thought out and structured encyclopedic article. A poor state for an article on such a central concept to be in, if you ask me.

If there are any experts in the audience, please consider spending some quality time on this article.

CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added it to my review project but it will probably be more than a year before I would start working on it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Trace_Compass. The reasoning: The project LTTng referred to it, and Trace Compass has a certain level of notability: it is used in university labs both for research and teaching purposes, it has papers in IEEE and ACM published discussing its uses and is discussed in 4 (known) books, with a fifth one coming soon. I am a developer/product owner of this product and have MAJOR conflicts of interest. I am striving to make sure the article is not an ad. I appreciate the reviews, and realize I may have been wrong by basing this page on the lttng one. Would there be any resources available to help write the article in a more "conformal way" to the wikipedia standard? would it be better to be a paragraph in the eclipse software page? Advice is appreciated.

Thanks! (and sorry for using reviewer's time inefficiently. Mattatericsson (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

First red flag is a ref bombing of "WHO" uses your application. The right way would be to write what these sources say about the software. Note the coverage in the sources should be broad enough (eg. one short paragraph about the application is probably not suficient for notability in the Wikipedia sense). Pavlor (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm a LendingClub employee looking to resolve a few issues with LendingClub's article. There's been a merger, where parts of the (now-deleted) LendingClub Bank page have been integrated into the LendingClub one, resulting in a LendingClub article that contains a fair amount of outdated information and inaccuracies. I don't want to get too in the weeds here; you can read about the post-merger issues in detail over at the LC Talk page. Myself and another editor are trying to go about this the right way, building consensus on next steps. Because I have a COI, I understand that I don't really get a vote in this process, and so it would be great if an independent editor or two from this WikiProject could assess the situation and weigh in. Thanks so much! EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, WikiProject editors. I am here on behalf of my employer, Diligent Corporation, to seek updates to the articles about Diligent Corporation and its CEO, Brian Stafford, in compliance with Wikipedia's COI rules. As of now, I have two open requests:

Diligent Corporation

• New request for History updates

Brian Stafford (businessman)

• Diligent section updates

Diligent has been trying to get these requests reviewed, but the process appears to have stalled. I'm happy to discuss these requests with editors on the article Talk pages. Thanks. MSDiligent (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about writing something about the system board used in Pacman arcade cabinets. CPU, memory, number of sprites, etc. But i am afraid they are going to toss it out. As they should, because i could be a dummy and technical details can be misunderstood or misleading even for a competent person. On top of that, i think there is an error in the schematics and that makes the whole thing more difficult still.

How to proceed? Wikipedia does not like claims that are not verifiable for a layman, but on the other hand there is no ambiguity there, so it is not the kind of original research where something is invented or estimated or interpolated. Nowakki (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think too technical is a problem, as long as you can write an intro that is reasonably accessible. See WP:Technical for how we typically approach difficult topics in math and physics. The main question I would have is that because schematics by themselves are often primary sources--is there secondary sourcing for interpretation of the schematics? Interpreting a primary schematic directly would seem to be original research. But if the schematic is discussed as part of a larger secondary work on arcade electronics, etc. I could see using it as a source. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

given that these are not schematics for ghz radio transceivers of moon rockets, i thought maybe this project has the pull to give a thumbs up to such an analysis in the eyes of whoever is guarding the quality of the existing pacman article. The game has enough historical significance to warrant the hope that people may be interested enough to dedicate some of their attention. i just wanted to generate some encouraging context, before i waste my time on another round of pointless debate with negatively minded wiki lawyers. You may be technically correct, but you didn't give the answer i was hoping for buddy. Nowakki (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

See this discussion.

This would have repercussions on all "[SOFTWARE] version history" articles. Feel free to weigh in. DFlhb (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A very interesting Hacker group which first drew a lot of attention from Israeli cyber researchers due to cyber attacks on israeli major corporations and government websites.

I think it’s really worth to write an article about this group. Kushiratu (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Printer (computing)#Requested move 17 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I propose to start a WP:Taskforce WikiProject Unicode, as a subproject of both Wikiproject Writing Systems (WSYS) and WikiProject Computing (COMP). The Taskforce be housed here, as a subpage of WP:COMP.

Scope would the topic of Unicode and its related pages & topics; also the points of interface with, for example, scripts, ISO 15924, symbols, computing, fonts; the Wikidata connection; possibly the more hardcore Wiki Interface (Java, CSS) and WP:TemplateStyle.

To do: time to build a Unicode article for TFA :-). Personally as an editor, in templates mostly, I could use a systematic overview of Unicode pages. Also, often I meet questions e.g. re template improvement or articles quality, I want to discuss more widely & thoroughly with engaged editors. I think the Standard could be described better in the articles (tbh, I only understand the workings of the Standard not from articles only, but by doing extra research). It would raise the quality standard. Anyway, we can aim to have more Unicode FA's.

Activity: I don't expect an overly active WProject (few are these days), but any Unicode discussion with involved editors is welcome. Currently, they appear in scattered places—while they relate to a wider Unicode issue. Central talk can improve the Unicode article standard.

Resources: A central repository would be welcome. Need a {{WikiProject Unicode}} project banner, quality assessment, Article Alerts.

Members and support: Please indicate below if you are potentially interested as a project member.

First job: The WProject needs a logo! Design can start, see & join the future [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unicode]] for the selection.

-DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging to invite @1234qwer1234qwer4, Babel, BabelStone, BarrelProof, Bruno Unna, Calidum, DePiep, Dominicmgm, Drmccreedy, M.h.gholamii, Mohmad Abdul sahib, Old Naval Rooftops, Red Slash, Spekkios, Vanisaac, and 力: (Users present at Talk:Unicode). -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Kwamikagami and John Maynard Friedman: invitation, from earlier interest. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Spitzak: -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Notified talk:Unicode, WP:Writing systems. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Possibly overlapping scope topics & projects (unsorted list): ISO 15924 (WP:WSYS); i18n, iw (Wikidata?); Help:Multilingual support, WP:UNICODE, Wiki Interface (Java, CSS), WP:TemplateStyle.

• Support & member as initator. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support & member though maybe not the most active. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support & member I have some ideas about templates and bots for facilitating maintenance. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 18:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts? DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe outside the scope of your proposal, but our lists of code points and associated images are duplicated in multiple other wikipedias and 30 wiktionaries. They're mostly all identical to one other, except for the names of the blocks sometimes being translated. Someone objected that rather than spending the time updating them all whenever unicode updates or someone adds images, they should be centralized at wikidata and transcluded, but I haven't seen any movement since. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth pursuing. A central wikipoint of contact at enwiki would surely help then. Some work on Wikidata is in progress. DePiep (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but I don't have any desire to administer or lead the project. I'm sure I'll participate at some level. My sarcastic logo for the project would, of course, be U+FFFD � REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. I like the idea of using the same data across multiple Wikipedias. I've tried to do that with the multilingual roadmap image. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Most lax way would be to have the WProject talkpage on your watchlist, then cpoints of interest will roll by. We should make i18n & iw part of scope then; another wiki-interface interface. Request granted, you won't be appointed Chancellor of the Task. (As for the logo: we can make the U+userbox accept ones favourite character. Mine could be an animated diacritic? The Non-breaking spiritual space?) DePiep (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my familiarity with the topic is very limited. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to explicitly add to the project scope the maintenance of ISO 15924 as well. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. Some 75% of these ISO scripts are in Unicode, and more are/havebeen researched. To be done by friendly takeover from parent WP Wrinting Systems. Not a prerequisite I assume, so can be an early initiative. DePiep (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Do not archive yet. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Template_talk:Cpulist#Release_price asking about keeping the historic release price in the tables for lists of microprocessors. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

could someone review the Draft:Brainchip page? Birdmanoftech (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I recommend to start anew using only reliable sources (see WP:RS, short definition: major news media, renowned tech publications, science journals etc.). Remove all patents and other primary sources (eg. Brainchip webpage). From my experience, publishing an article about a company is one of the hardest tasks here on EN Wiki. The article in its current state has no chance to get an approval from the AfC reviewers. Good luck! Pavlor (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Since an upmerge of WikiProject Apple Inc. into a WikiProject Computing task force has been proposed, here's a link to the relevant discussion from that talk page. DFlhb (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have an unanswered request that I have posted on the Talk page of the Verizon Communications article about the subsection Merger of equals (2000–2002). I thought that WikiProject Computing members may be interested given this WikiProject's scope includes networking and the Internet. Generally, this merger subsection is out of order and could benefit from some editing.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I can answer any questions about these requests on the Verizon Communications Talk page. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

9to5Google has an RFC for possible consensus, which may be relevant to this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. DFlhb (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I am looking to try and improve the page, reduce the size from 400k and make it somewhat more readable but I have run into the issue of radio silence until I make a change where it gets shutdown, just looking for some more input to check if I am completley missing the mark or what. Discussion at Talk:List of Nvidia graphics processing units#Rework the page: Simplify. Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 22:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Python (programming language) has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I received a message saying that my draft page about AOZ Studio should qualify for this area, however, the page was rejected twice. Also, I have a conflict of interest, in that I have done work for AOZ Studio in the past, and still volunteer for them now. Perhaps someone else could attempt to work on this? FYI, AOZ is a modern version of the AMOS BASIC programming language. Here's the draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AOZ_Studio ...although Wikipedia recommended starting over from scratch.

Here are some background reference articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS_(programming_language), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Lionet. Ising4jesus (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I see several issues with your draft. Most parts are unsourced and main sources used in the draft are interviews, which confer nothing to notability in Wikipedia sense. My recommendation: Find 3 independent reliable sources (see WP:RS for more info; in short: reviews/news in published/online magazines with editorial staff should be OK) and write short article based on them. Alternatively, you could add some info (and references) to the AMOS article and use redirect from AOZ Studio, but this shouldn't be too long paragraph (AOZ Studio is merely a footnote in the history of AMOS). I offer my help with the draft (I learned AMOS two years ago and like that language...), but don't hold your breath too high - achieving notability (in Wikipedia sense) for a new obscure application is not an easy task. Pavlor (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first step is to identify WP:THREE good sources that establish notabilty. The other problem you're facing is that tt is difficult for an editor with WP:COI to write a neutral article. Your best way through this challenge may be to WP:STUBIFY the draft so that it is too short to have serious problems. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

More input at Talk:Bumble#Inspiration Daily source would be useful to reach a consensus. The contested content is sourced to the blog Inspiration Daily. — Bilorv (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a notice that per WP:RSN#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money", there is consensus that CNET is no longer considered a reliable source. Thank you for your attention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The project watchlist (https://tools.wmflabs.org/dispenser/cgi-bin/transcluded_changes.py?namespace=&page=Template:WikiProject_Computing Wikiproject) is now dead. I've replaced it with a watchlist that only includes talk pages, but does anyone know of a tool that provides a watchlist of all project pages, including articles? DFlhb (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've build a hacky workaround for WikiProject Apple, which this project could imitate; but there's likely a better way. DFlhb (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any redlinks index, like WP:WIR/REDLIST? Any way to use a bot to (partially) maintain one? DFlhb (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet, linked in the sidebar. Disregard. DFlhb (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I worked on an article about Confidential Computing. Tried to make it as objective and well-referenced as possible. Seeking review and suggestions. Note, I'm affiliated with a related non-profit industry group and will abide by all rules regarding conflicts. All help appreciated. Thanks! -HudsonAttests (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

An individual project, not something for a Unicode to handle - just not my style. The “wiki” has been a little rough in format for some time, fixes are going to get done and should be. Not up this path, against, nay. Great idea and good suggestion. INTJwemudusnwtoanzd (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, just wondering if any of you would be interested in expanding the AI boom article that was created recently. It's a bit short and needs more info regarding reactions (such as the recent petition to halt AI development for six months) and some other stuff. 124.179.133.128 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ex Falso (tag editor)#Requested move 7 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Improvement: Just for clarity, as of November 2006, Exabyte has been led to its defunct because it wanted a buyer.) 73.141.202.124 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The page on memory rank states that "...modern DIMMs can consist of one rank (single rank), two ranks (dual rank), four ranks (quad rank), or eight ranks (octal rank)." It should be noted that there are three rank DIMMs(e.g. Samsung's M393B3G70DV0), and presumably any number of ranks can exist 50.25.161.249 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)