Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

Content Protected - View Source Only

Why on earth is a page that is meant to be edited by people to request articles protected so people cannot edit it?! Every resource for "requesting a Wikipedia article" forwards here, and there is no way to request an article!! Shame you on!

Also, requesting an article for gmask software.

Wikinazis??

I removed wikinazis, it seems like a slang term more suitable for a site such as urban dictionary. Any disagreement?

Even slang terms have a place, and are often only a few steps away from full integration into a language. I would argue that it might be good to have mention, even if well-protected (as it would be an inviting target for vandals), if only to serve as a warning to each of us. Further, a quick web search for the term does show related results, so it isn't necessarily wholely irrelevant.--Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Restructure needed

These categories are real unbalanced - some with a handful of entries, some with at least 100. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Make alphabet headings into sections?

The Software section is unwieldy and could benefit from having a TOC entry for each letter entry. We might try using a Compact tables of contents. — Teratornis 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried this and it messed up the TOC, so I reverted to the previous version. I might try again if I find an example of a page that does it right. — Teratornis 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I should RTFM here:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/Compact tables of contents
• Template talk:AlphanumericTOC

and see if I can convert the alphabetic pseudo-section-headings into real section headings, while keeping the TOC manageable. — Teratornis 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at this by creating a new template, {{PseudoHeading}}, and using it in conjunction with {{AlphanumericTOC}}. By using PseudoHeading instead of actual section headings, the main TOC is kept uncluttered. — Davnor 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OSS (Operations Support Systems)

What is OSS (operations support systems) as used in the Telecom (Billing?) Industry?

See Operations Support System and Operational Support Systems — Davnor 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Save a VfD

...and don't create these articles. If they don't exist, it's because they were not meant to exist... m.e. 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Real Time Processing

I created a redirect to Real-time computing as I see it as pretty much synonymous with Real Time Processing. Should anyone disagree, please comment on my home page and we can try to build an article that differentiates between the two. Otherwise, I will remove it from this list some time in the future.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. No comments. I'm pulling it from the list and considering the issue closed. --KNHaw ^(talk) 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannon's algorithm

I created the requested CS article Cannon's algorithm. I couldn't find much more info after a brief search. I'll try to download Cannon's PhD thesis to see whether I can find more there. For the time being, could someone more experienced in distributed algorithms improve it? NerdyNSK 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Comer

I created the requested page Douglas E. Comer. Could you help improve it? NerdyNSK 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anytime A*

For anyone interested in either writing this article or merging into A*, here is a link to a research paper describing it: http://www.jair.org/papers/paper2096.html. I'll try to do it sometime in the next week if nobody else does it. HebrewHammerTime 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination against encyclopedic entry requests.

Libraries are an encyclopedia type entry, and in fact large and famous libraries would even get entries in encyclopedias, and yet many users are DISCRIMINATING against online library pages. Why? because a company is making money off it, that's the best answer I can figure out. I've tried requesting a page, (they deleted it) I've tried making my own pages, (they speedy deleted them) I tried hangon with an argument for the page, and they went through and DELETED the articles so that the discussion pages were deleted, thus removing my argument for the existence of said pages.. I mean come on this is the 21st century and the libraries of the 21st century allow you to get books online, for no cost to you, and any attempt to ask for, create or request pages of this sort are getting rapidly eradicated within hours of their request. GET A CLUE do people delete Minnesota Vikings entries? what the heck does a sport team have to do with an encyclopedia? if the article is too short why not mark it a stub, what's with trying to eradicate all existence and any logs of edits done in a completely unfair manner with no room for discussion or counter point????? I am starting to keep track of the users who delete these pages, because DIGITAL LIBRARIES ARE A PART OF THE MODERN ERA. They will make print encyclopedias before they make wikipedia because of the deletion and discrimination against them! How petty are these people? there is genuine need for unbiased information about online libraries, because to the layman they are a new concept not something they'd know about without reading about it in say, an online news article which would have less details than a wiki entry, and when they go to wiki to try and learn more, or create a page they're shot down by crazy 20th century relics who think libraries deal in printed books only! if you think specific entries don't belong in the article made specifically for them then what is wrong with suggesting elsewhere to put the information??? I'm confused and i want answers what's so wrong that OverDrive Digital media services is blacklisted off wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesuki (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: There seems to be an article on OverDrive,_Inc., if this is what you meant. However, there's a single vote for deletion. -- 80.136.89.47 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Find/Replace

I apologize for cluttering up the Talk page, but I'm not sure in what category to put a request for an article on the Find/Replace function used in many (consumer-oriented) text-editors. I haven't found an article so far that addresses this. N Vale (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified/indiscriminate list needing clean-up

This 'list' is clearly outdated and full of items which really don't need their own article. For example, I've already removed FISMO_Roles, as it was clearly meant to be Flexible_single_master_operation. I'll keep working on qualifying & culling the list, and maybe even starting some articles to get them off this list. If I think any removal's may be disputed, I'll list the removed items here.Whippen (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Poisoned website - Removed, as this is not a widely accepted term, so I'm not even sure what is it (supposed to be) about. My best guess is a compromised host used in a phishing context, in which case I don't believe a separate article is required.Whippen (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don`t know why User:ErikTheBikeMan delete my part?????!!!!!
  

I strongly doubt that the following article is unnecessary...
Comparison of Visual Basic and Visual Basic .NET - the reason of creation is stated in the section Adding a link of the page Template talk:DotNET. UU (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Naum (chess)

Naum (4.0) is currently the second strongest computer chess engine. Would deserve an article IMO. See also CCRL ratings and the Naum homepage. I have started the german Wikipedia article but I think a native english speaker should start the english article. --80.121.56.75 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

is this the right place?

I'm not 100% sure this is the right place, but I added a request for an article about A4tech, I didn't add a link to their site in the actual page cause I dunno if that would be ok or not. I've not used many of their products (but only because it is not the type of thing I buy with much frequency), but I like what I've tried so far, either way, I don't know enough about them to write an article even if didn't prefer their products over the products of other brands, so I would like someone with more info and in better position for not have their unbiasedness questioned to create an article for it (aparently there used to be an article about the company but it got deleted 'cause according to the log thing people thought it was advertisment-like, I dunno why it wasn't re-worked to be better instead of deleted, but I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should have an article about it, preferably a good one of course :) --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Condor (company)

An article used to exist for this company, but it was deleted. If it could be un-deleted, I'd be willing to make it better (replace advertisement-like material, add external references, etc). If nobody undeletes it, I may make a stab at writing one from scratch. A player as significant as Red Condor should qualify as sufficiently noteworthy to have an article, especially since Brightmail (a lessor player in the same industry) has an article already. :-) TTK (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Analog Rails

Hello Wikipedians, my name is Justin Fuhrer and I am a representative of Analog Rails. I wanted to make it known that I am available to provide, and help improve the quality of, information/images/etc. regarding Analog Rails, if it is deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me via my talk page [1] or by e-mail (justin@analograils.com). As I have noted in more detail on my user page [2], I have read and am familiar with Wikipedia's rules/guidelines regarding COI [3], and will not make any edits to pages that are about or related to Analog Rails. Thank you! - Justin Fuhrer (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

LumenVox

After some discussion with other Wikipedia editors, I have placed a request for an article on LumenVox in the organizations section. As I note in the request, I have a conflict of interest (I am an employee of LumenVox) but believe it is a significantly notable organization. At User:Stephen Keller/LumenVox I have a draft article that includes quite a few quality references and a good summary of why the company meets the notability guidelines.

I am available to answer questions or provide more information if any editor is interested in creating this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Keller (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Creepypasta?

Not sure if I'll be shot down or not, but I thought I;d give it a try by asking if someone can possibly make a page for the term "Creepypasta". It doesn't have to be like the long list of actual creepypastas, like of Encyclopedia Dramatica, but I thing something that's as big as Creepypasta should get its own page, if only for being an online cultural phenomenon that seems to be the natural digression of urban legends and ghost stories. Really, I'm surprised that an article for creepypasta doesn't ALREADY exist. Some good references would be 4chan's /x/ board, or maybe creepypasta.com, a site dedicated to archiving the bulk of what comes out of some authors here and there, but mostly to the stuff that comes directly from internet regulars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightMary13 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory Internet search, there does not appear to be enough reliable source material to sustain a separate article on creepypasta. In fact, the term copypasta, from creepypasta is derived, does not even have an article of it's own, merely a sentence in the Cut, copy, and paste article. I would have suggested adding a Wiktionary defintion instead of a Wikipedia article, but please note the entry for creepypasta in Wikitionary's deletion log. Nevertheless, if you feel that reliable sources do exist, which could be cited to establish both verifiability and notability, then please feel free to add creepypasta to the project page (The Internet section would probably be a good place). Thanks! Davnor (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fractals

I have a computer fractal/internet meme that allegedly makes anyone who views it to long or in certain sections drop dead. Where would this go?-Zyrath (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Updated Content?

shouldn't we remove all of the content that now has a page i.e all of the hyper-links in blue? if not, could someone give me a reason?Dietcoke3.14 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed, but there's no automated process to do that. Individual editors are going to have to routinely review this page and help remove pages that have already be created. We might automate it in the future, but right now, we're going to have to do it by hand. Note that it's also appropriate to remove pages that do not meet the inclusion criteria. Netalarm^talk 04:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Text entry device

I am in the research phases. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Home Automation

Their should be a sub-heading for home automation Daylen (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested Article- Computer Museum

I created the requested article List of Computer Museums but there were a lot of links that were in red, should we make a sub heading for article requests for museums? MBlairMartin (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It Sutra Pvt Ltd

From the year the company was founded in 2011, IT Sutra has been focused more on Financial sectors providing automation services. Solutions that we had developed had been certified by Nepal Investment Bank for its National Payment Network and likewise the same is being implemented to multiple banks within the same network. We boast of innovative technologies from the likes of Nano-PC, Interactive Whiteboards being implemented in Education sectors. We take pride in implementing these technologies to private and public schools from central city to villages.

Recently, we have merged with City Express Money Transfer Pvt. Ltd. IT Sutra now serves as a consulting arm for City Express for Technology as its sister concern. City Express established in 2007, is a rapidly growing institution with operations today in over multiple countries and growing and revenues in multi-millions $. Further to existing strength in technology, we as a company now aim to build further on the experience of City Express in different regions of the world to get un-paralleled insight into target markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basantji (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Upper Confidence Bound (UCB Algorithm)

I'm not sure how much could be included in an article on UCB - it seems to be covered (with context) in Exploration and exploitation.

Of course, if UCB is used within other algorithms, it may be worth pulling it out into a separate article. Sboy365License to edit. 13:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Split this page into computer science and computing?

My original attempt was to add some article wishes from the domain of Artificial Intelligence. After browsing through all the other sections of “requested articles” it seems, that this page is the right one for this idea. Unfortunately, the page here is very long. This is not only my opinion, but it was written in the message box on top too. So the recommendation is to split the page into two pages: computer science and computing.

In the first page, only article requests with an academic approach are collected for example algorithm and theory, while in the second one the lighter side of computing is stored which are search engines, software, companies and hardware.

In the past, article requests were discussed on the portal pages. But according to some recent deletions, the former portals are mostly gone, This is especially correct for Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Nanotechnology To coordinate the creation of new articles the article request wish list is a good idea, because it combines the requests for all domains. If the former portals are gone, it make sense to structure the wish list with more effort, so it can be used to define in which direction the encyclopedia can be extended.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest addition Nimbus Note

Nimbus Note has no academic paper at Google scholar. Note taking software in general is discussed in the literature. The probability that the article request is denied is 100%.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Removal of "Object-Action Complex" article request from A.I. section

There is already an article Object Action Complex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4444dot (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability of various algorithms and next steps

Looking through this page to find some articles to work on, I've noticed some requested articles that seem to basically be supported by a single academic publication, with the potential addition of a feature in a university newsletter. I believe this violates WP:N as well as WP:PRIMARY, as it is active research which has no secondary or tertiary sources removed from the origin of the work.

As a result, I intend to start working my way through them and either adding a page or deleting the request. I've added this section with the purpose of discussing this if necessary (and feel free to tell me if I'm in the wrong here, although I've made plenty of edits in the past without an account this is my first time doing something like this). GettingCozy (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, here's the first round of cleanup:

• Removed AI Politician as not being notable
• Removed BitFunnel, as I've created that page
• Removed GPUpdate as not being notable or an algorithm
• Removed Gur Game, Hunter-Gatherer Algorithm, Hyper-Pipes Algorithm, Intelligent Web Algorithm, Nested Means, ServEnt threads as not being notable (this page is one of the top hits for those phrases)
• Removed Parameter Tuning as not being notable and being overly vague: I suspect this is in relevance to control loop parameter tuning, but that's covered by pages on PID's.
• Removed Upwards Exposed Uses, as I've created that page
• Removed Contact region, page is created

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GettingCozy (talk • contribs)

If it saves you time, there's no need to post these (presumably non-controversial) removals on the talk page, just explain the reason (often just "not notable" is fine) in the edit summaries. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip there-- I'll use the edit summaries for that purpose. Regarding your question on taking the notability of topics for pages I have created into account: I believe that I've been reasonably selective, but I'm also new so I'm happy to take a bit of guidance on the criteria for notability. GettingCozy (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't think BitFunnel is notable based on the current page sources, but let's ping that page's reviewer: @Mcampany, do you have an opinion on the page's notability? (I don't know if assessing notability is part of the page review process). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about the topic but the article about BitFunnel from a 2017 conference suggested it meets the general notability guideline. It's the second citation in the article I think. (Sorry about any formatting weirdness; I'm on mobile) Mcampany (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.' The conference paper is from Microsoft engineers about a Microsoft technology; I wouldn't consider it a secondary source. (I also personally don't consider most conference papers to be WP:RS, but that's just my personal judgement that I'm not going to foist on other editors.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson I think your argument makes sense. Feel free to nominate it for deletion. Thanks! Mcampany (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The deletion of “AI Politician” was wrong. Wikipedia doesn't has an article about the subject, but it is mentioned in Google scholar under the term “virtual politician” in more than a single source.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you give specific references that you believe satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, I'm not finding any of the detailed independent coverage we'd need for an article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put the article request back on the list Special:Diff/965439992 and added a literature reference. Even CNN (the news channel) has reported about the SAM virtual politician. Additionally, the article request directory has a lower standard than the draft-submission pipeline. If somebody has written a 5 kb long article about AI politicans he has to submit it first to the Article for creation process and one of the admins will decide if it's notable.

Scola, Nancy. "Avatar politics: the social applications of Second Life." (2007). reports about a virtual avatar of a US-governor who is available in the Second life computer game. We can discuss if this development make sense and how it will affects real politics, but at least it's a phenomena which is available and which is discussed in the academic domain.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Avatar politics: the social applications of Second Life." is not remotely WP:RS. I wouldn't personally consider the cnn article[4] to be "Significant coverage", but ymmv. That said, I don't know what criteria are required to ever remove a link from this page. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcement to remove excessive URL references

A short look into the current directory have shown, that some of the article requests are equipped with a lot of URL references. This can be found for: Damian Mingle, Deeponion, EditPad, Sendtask, Computer History Association of California.

In the best case, the users who have created this entries will remove some of the URLs by themself. If no improvement of the situation is visible until 2020-10-03, I will remove the URLs.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Announcement to remove four strikethrough entries

The current article contains of a section “The Internet”, in which some article requests are formatted in strikethrough. It is unclear what this formatting structure means and at which time in the past the entries were labeled in this way. It is maybe a sign, that the articles are available in the main space or it can imply that the topic is no longer relevant. This is visible for the entries:

Agora (Nomic), AVING, Brothersoft and Naviance Succeed.

Apart from these four entries, more article requests are marked as strikethrough, but in the first round, i will focus only on these entries. If no counter arguments are provided in the near future, i will delete the mentioned four entries from the article. This will reduce the article size and provide more space for new article wishes which can be added to the list.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Announcement to remove 5 additional strike through entries

A closer look into the page have shown, that some strike through entries can be found in the section “The Internet”. Strike through can have the meaning, that the request is no longer relevant but can have any other sense as well. They take a lot of space in bytes but they do not provide additional value; it is vague. The article requests are:

• Dpadd, Flokit, Grepolis, Hyper G, Svtble

If no counter arguments are provided, i will delete these entries in the near future. The goal is to keep the article request page as short as possible.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove excessive URL references in 4 entries

Some article requests are equipped with an extensive URL list to show it's importance. Eight and more URLs are provided in the following entries:

• Vewd Software AS, 8
• LBackup, 8
• T-Splines, 9
• All in One - System Rescue Toolkit, 11

The problem is, that such a long list doesn't improve the readability, but it looks like a link collection. Instead of deleting all the URLs, it make sense to reduce the amount of URLs to only 3. If no counter arguments are provided, i will the shrink the URL list for these entries in the near future. The article requests itself will remain online.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the too long template

I've decided to be bold and remove the too long template. This requested article list is actually quite short compared to other ones and it's already divided into other pages like User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Computer-related subjects and Wikipedia:Missing science topics/NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures which are linked here already. I've also removed wikilinks to articles that have already been created over time, so the list is shorter than it used to be. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to revert and discuss here. Clovermoss (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding editing notes to proposed articles

Hi - Noob here. I'm looking for a good technical topic for my first article. I have a general understanding of reliable sources but just have to find a topic that has a few. While going through this requested article list, I realized that there's no way to record feedback about each topic. For example, if I Google a topic and can't find anything, I'd like to be able to leave that info in a footnote. That might save the next person the time and trouble of looking on Google. Someone else might come around and do a more specific search in academic journals, and then if they don't find anything, they could add that to the notes, to alert the next editor. This would cut down on duplication of effort. There could also be a date for the entry so that if enough time had passed, the next person could do a new search. And rather than delete the entries that don't have sources, wouldn't it be better to leave them somewhere with their notes, so they aren't proposed again, restarting the whole cycle? I'm pretty sure I saw a small inline footnote code that expands to a larger note with a mouseover. This would also help as a way to condense excessive sources instead of deleting them (see above). This could be used on all the requested article pages. STEMinfo (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also came looking for this. I spent hours researching flame graphs for a new article before determining insufficient verifiability. I also found potential contradictions in sources, which I wanted to note as they might be of interest to a future author.

When I found no documented precedent, I decided to create a draft talk page to discuss, which I linked on the requested article list item. Thoughts on this approach? Talk or Draft talk seems like the natural location for discussing a nonexistent article.

Ddeveau (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that @Liz already deleted the talk page I created, citing "G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page" which I failed to find beforehand.

Liz, can you help us understand the right place for inclusion considerations and other notes for a nonexistent article?

Thanks! Ddeveau (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)