This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
I'm surprised to see this project created. I didn't see anything posted at WT:COMP. Was it ever discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals? I'm really glad to see coordinated editing on any computing topic, but hate to see so much effort put in to infrastructure.
How many articles are estimated to be in the scope? According to the guide to WikiProjects it seems like a task force would be more appropriate.
It's impossible to know all of this stuff in advance, until you commented I had no idea half of this documentation was even available, that half the procedures we were supposed to follow existed. I'd much rather spend my time editing articles than involved in minutia of how wikiprojects are administered, owned by other projects, task force vs project etc etc etc. It's been discussed on the most appropriate forums for locating people likely to contribute to it for the last several weeks, if we hadn't moved forward any momentum in doing this work would be lost.--Flibble (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's actually my point. Setting up and maintaining a project is a lot of work (which is somewhat lessened by leveraging the parent project). Did you read the discussion above? The documentation is linked and quoted. I'd have been happy to discuss it at WT:COMP. I urge you to create the category structure ASAP. (WP:HotCat is really helpful.) That'll give you the fastest idea of how many articles there are. --Pnm (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned below, can you point me at a project that uses the simpler one category system rather than the two category currently being used. I want to check to see if anything is lost (or gained for that matter) by changing. Incidentally I know how many pages are in scope at the moment, 37 (this is provided by the bots as currently setup). In response to question about potential size, perhaps a few hundred articles depending on how many pieces of software/games reach a level of notability or the ability to find references for. At the moment the project is (for me at least) providing the tools that I need it too, being able to track articles in scope, see their importance and quality, and it's easy to add articles and alter their quality/importance.--Flibble (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you point me at an example project that works in the way you describe, so I can check before commenting further.--Flibble (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well on that documentation, we have the two categories in the sections "Article assessment requires a Category:Tulips articles by quality (and, optionally, a Category:Tulips articles by importance)", but not the category mention above that "Once the project begins to develop article-related processes, such as assessment or peer review, it is appropriate to create a subcategory for the various articles being tagged into them". I believe Pnm is suggesting removing the two categories currently present, and using just the one category, it's a wikiproject that uses categories in a similar manner that I wanted to see an example of before commenting further.--Flibble (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A quick view through some of those task forces suggests they have quality indicators but no importance indicators. As such I wouldn't want to move to a model like that, it seems less useful.--Flibble (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm on the verge of adding Elite to the project, as a Mid-importance RISC OS item. But I don't know how it would be viewed if potentially every RISC OS game were to be added to WP:COMP, in order that they be included here in WP:RISCOS. 'Elite' is already within WP:VG, so I'm wondering if it'd be possible to do further work on the assessment categories in order that we can have a WP:RISCOS tag within WP:VG articles. I'm willing to look into this myself, if no one else has time to do so. Would we need something like Category:RISC OS games (similar to Category:Amiga games)? Flibble - if you think this is unworkable then please let me know. --Trevj (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have ideas for useful questions we could possibly ask at WT:CATP? I've had a brief look through the categories guidance but maybe someone reading this is more conversant than I am and would be able to suggest some pointers. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This Green cogwheel will probably do for the mo. If anyone fancies tweaking it (e.g. reducing internal diameter, extending teeth) be my guest! (Use "Upload a new version of this file" link and edit the description accordingly.) --Trevj (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look around here. Open tasks was created by the project template, {{WikiProject}}: as can be seen in the first page in the Project's history. Although not currently used, I guess that no one's commented it out, as a reminder that it's an available tool which could be used in the future - probably when more people join the project. The addition of Suggested articles is a good idea IMO, and not inconsistent with a number of other WikiProjects. Please note that this WikiProject is in its infancy. Anyway, does this make things any clearer? Thanks. --trevj (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you're wondering why we have Suggested articles in addition to New articles, in which case you may have a point. We could consider merging them under the same heading. --trevj (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I will look around here, as you can consider I add this project to my watchlist. I'm normally interested in architectures, old oses and anything related to the internet/www. I think merging is a good idea. mabdul16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
How important is it that the following red links are created? Are there a few relevant citations in each case, therefore justifying their creation under WP:NOTE? Or can their content be included within a section of a another article? (I've added a few others to Suggested articles.)
Please add to this list if you stumble across any others which you don't think should be added to the 'Suggested articles' list.
I'm not entirely sure of the ARMini and BiK pages, they are after all BeagleBoards in Boxes, would any specific content for them be better living on the Beagle Board page?--Flibble (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability is a rolling thing, if things happen in future and more refs become available, then yeah let's add them, marked as strikethrough till then.--Flibble (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To quote the 'great man' himself on this idea "22:30 <@diodesign> jesus christ 22:31 <@diodesign> isn't one for drobe enough ?" --Flibble (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone is completely at liberty to remove the redlinks and strikethrough the proposal here. Obviously, such an article isn't a high priority - but a quick project to create the article (as a stub) is less daunting TBH than tackling issues with the existing aritcles which are lacking sources etc. (see #Update: December 2011). Any such article would of course be subject to policies such as biographies of living persons and notability. For reference, there is a number of articles within Category:British technology writers, where such an article would probably belong. Regardless of any 'great man' opinions, if an article about a notable subject is informative to enclyopedia readers, then IMO it should be included (e.g. Amy Standen, Inkie, Denise Grey). -- Trevj (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, as this project only covers RISC OS, just one of the operating systems that Acorn used. However the RISC OS software that handled file/other transfer to the psions/pocket books would come under the scope.--Flibble (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Listing participants
For those wondering why alphabetical order is requested, this is to avoid newcomers feeling as though there's some sort of heirarchy according to sign-up date! This can be changed, as long as there is consensus. Thanks. --trevj (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Peer review
I've (incorrectly) interpreted the WikiProject Computing article assessments as being WikiProject peer reviews. The requested articles were indeed assessed, i.e. given quality and importance ratings at COMP/A, although that process didn't include official reviewing. The dates of their assessment are now recorded on their respective talk pages (tagged as WikiProject peer review for the moment). This has prompted the following thoughts:
Once we've significantly raised the quality of the articles, we could request some true WikiProject Computing/Peer Reviews (for either Start-class or B-class articles).
This currently only includes RISC OS, which is Start-Class and Mid-importance (within the general WikiProject Computing criteria)
It might give us a better feel for the quality standards (and avoid following the same review procedures more times than is necessary) by first working an article up to B-Class (presumably requiring reassessment by WP:COMP), e.g. Acorn Archimedes and Phoebe are currently C-Class, so would be likely candidates. (Note that 'Acorn Archimedes' is Mid and 'Phoebe (computer)' Low on the general scale, so perhaps assessors/reviewers with limited time are more likely to be a little more interested in commenting on the former.)
Of course there's also Acorn Computers, which hasn't been assessed as part of the recent work but was a former featured article.
Then perhaps the next stage will be this Peer review process.
Before submitting anything for peer review, we should be relatively happy with it first. For examples of what sort of things reviewers comment on, I suggest finding other articles of interest to you at WP:PR#toc (which changes, as articles are added/reviewed/drop off the list) and following their progress. --Trevj (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Recruitment
ChangeFSI to the rescue regarding the greyscale bitmap! However, printing (so far I've only tested via Windows) still insists on using colour unless 'Print in greyscale' is selected.
Never mind, here's a PDF of the FAQ flyer which was distibuted at Wakefield 2011. If your user group hasn't already discussed this, please feel free to print copies for distribution at meeting(s). --Trevj (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference although the naming is wrong in these lists. The first one is for woking in a virtual machine (i do think) and the second one is for emulating the apis within a operating system (no emulator of the os - emulating of the standard apis of an operating system so the started application thinks it is working under the needed os although it runs under something totally different that shouldn't work normally). mabdul13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. It looks useful, e.g. WP:WPRSoutput. I'll request for the project to be listed in a week or two unless anyone states any good reasons why we shouldn't do so. --Trevj (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just read WP:SETINDEX. It might be appropriate (at some point in the future) to consider organising some articles around this idea. E.g. if/when new articles are created for notable hardware, a main article could discuss things generally. This could be a "one step at a time" proposal comprising:
Expanding sections on individual hardware coverage;
Your request has been added to the queue. The request key is e7j786k - keep this to edit or delete the request before it is accepted --Trevj (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject RISC OS to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject RISC OS/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Acorn-Netstation.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Acorn-Netstation.jpg, which you've sourced to seems to be an official PR image, please send permission!. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mabdul16:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed CSD tag, photo is (c) me and not a publicity shot. I have granted appropriate permission when uploading the photo.--Flibble (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:AcornPhoebeCase.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AcornPhoebeCase.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mabdul16:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Free Acorn Users (to be collected from Buckinghamshire before Saturday 12 November 2011)
Here are a few things (relating to the Project, rather than specifics of articles) that I think it would be helpful to address over the next month or two:
Investigating how the "to do" list could work (I've seen these transcluded on talk page banners for articles within other projects)
Clearer navigation around the project - there are a few good examples elsewhere but probably requesting some guidance from WP:COMP and WP:COUNCIL would be helpful
Perhaps concentrating focus (say, for 1 month or so) on specified tasks/groups of articles with a common theme, e.g.
