Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

Active discussions
WikiProject Computing (Rated Project-class)
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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Internet SocietyEdit

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)

Category:Binary logicEdit

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

Help resolving duplicate article issueEdit

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)

Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuitsEdit

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)

Elecom discussionEdit

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospaceEdit

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

Use of Watson (computer) at Bambino Gesù HospitalEdit

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)

Articles for deletionEdit

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

Codepage deletions/transwikificaionEdit

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)

PlanEdit

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)]]

Transwiki referencesEdit

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

Improvements to TomTom articleEdit

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)

EBCDIC transwiki to WikiBooksEdit

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
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)

Naming the namesEdit

@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 [2] (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))

Anyone willing to pick this up?Edit

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)

(Extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspectiveEdit

  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)

Draft:Aspose.BarCodeEdit

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)


Cleanup of List of filename extensionsEdit

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)

A new-ish computer-graphics sense of "mura"Edit

  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)

Confusing overlap between VLSI Project and Mead & Conway revolutionEdit

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

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)

I would like to create Category:Memory-unsafe programming languages and Category:Memory-safe programming languagesEdit

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
--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 [3]. 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)

Anyone know about Per-user unitary rate control?Edit

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)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Computing".