This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Home 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
Er - I don't understand lots and lots of things in this article. In fact it just bamboozles me half the time. I'm a college lecturer and have been using computers to make music with since 1985. I somehow think your aim should be for someone like me to understand your article, but it's way way too tech savvy to actually be of worth to people who wish to learn something from your work.
You all evidently have fantastic knowledge, but you really need to work out how to share that knowledge with other s who seek it, rather than just passing it around yourselves. Coming up with an Acronym and saying that that is a "language" or a "Compiling language" is not much use to people who don't know what a computer language is...
Please TRY to address those who have come to you for knowledge in a way that does not put them off returning to these wonderful resources.
My Name Is Andy. I do Not write for WP, but I feel that I may be allowed to comment. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're not alone. Click this link to read a Wikipedia guideline that implores editors to make articles readable (this article isn't much worse than other articles). You might prefer to click Simple:Computer for a simpler version, but many Simple English Wikipedia articles are no simpler than English Wikipedia; editors' vanity is almost as big a problem over there.
Do you know how to click links? I think you mean the table at Computer#Languages (click to see what it is). If you read that table and you don't know what an assembly language is, for instance, click the blue link where it says assembly language. Art LaPella (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou very much Art LaPella - for taking the time to respond. Yes, I do realise that I can get definitions of various terms by clicking links - but of course this is a very disruptive process for the learner and I would at least like to feel that a subject as important as The Computer could at least open with enough information to satisfy the enquiring mind without the over use of complex terminology that requires navigation away from the subject in hand. However, you seem to have a similar view. So I will not preach to the converted. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
New sections: Advantages/Disadvantages of computers
I'm not a fan of these recently-added new sections. They are a mix of obvious statements with a few questionable ones thrown in, and it's in list form, which we general don't go for in Wikipedia. Plus, it's not sourced. Is there anything can be done to fix this, or should we just remove them? --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. Given the importance of the topic and the large number of good, well referenced articles relating to it, I think that this article has a very long way to go to get up to a similar standard.--TedColes (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Remove it. The inanity of it reminds me of a grade-school textbook. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I to assume that when a technology becomes wide spread enough in the real world listing it's instances in fiction becomes pointless? Someone a thousand years from now may not particularly give notice when they replicate their food or walk through a teleporter; they would probably see those things as being as mundane as we see things as like using a car of a refrigerator; however someone from the past without that technology would certainly notice it. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The question is not whether or not the element is common or not, but rather whether or not it is a defining element of the subject. For example, Speed Racer has fictional categories for racing drivers and motorsports. Both are reasonably common in real life, but both are defining characteristics of Speed Racer (also, Mach Five is in "Fictional racing cars", a defining characteristic of the car).
For comparison, Tron is (appropriately, IMO) in "Artificial intelligence in fiction". It would be impossible to discuss Tron without discussing the fictional computer. Star Trek, OTOH, is not in "Artificial intelligence in fiction" or any similar category, despite the ship's computer or Data being significant elements of the franchise. The computers are not defining elements of the franchise. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
computer is an electronic device that takes input from the user analyze it , process it and give the desired output and also provide the capability for storing data for future use. Cncreate (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)