Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

WikiProject restructuring

Project	Watchers	Page views (main / talk, 2010)	Revisions / Contributors (talk)	GA/FA	Articles (stubs)	Assessments
WikiProject C++	59	3680 / 464	few	None	224	{{WikiProject C++}}
WikiProject Computational Biology	32	did not exist yet	87 / 20	1 / 1
WikiProject Computing	223	23488 / 8738	1429 / 480	62/17	27,408	{{WikiProject Computing}}
WikiProject Computer graphics	0	did not exist yet	2 / 1	None	634	{{WikiProject Computer graphics}}
WikiProject Computer music	0	334 / 74	24 / 12	None	?	No
WikiProject Computer networking (now a task force of WikiProject Computing)	54	6593 / 569	164 / 68	2/0	1,517	{{WikiProject Computer networking}}
WikiProject Computer science	390	23739 / 2848	1369 / 288	9/1	3,360 (4,047)	{{WikiProject Computer science}}
WikiProject Computer Security	33	3693 / 1230	173 / 53	7/2	1,555 (84+82+179-3)	{{WikiProject Computer Security}}
WikiProject Computer Vision	0	did not exist yet	1 / 1	None	12	{{WikiProject Computer Vision}}
WikiProject Cryptography	102	8957 / 903	402 / 83	None	599	{{WikiProject Cryptography}}
WikiProject Databases	37	1885 / 456	53 / 24	2 / 1	649	{{WikiProject Databases}}
WikiProject Free Software	44	4425 / 1024	353 / 97	7 / 1	1,223 (313)	{{WikiProject Free Software}}
WikiProject Internet	34	4636 / 2614	84 / 50	16/3	? (478)	{{WikiProject Internet}}
WikiProject Java	31	5588 / 819	75 / 26	1/0	1,474	{{WikiProject Java}}
WikiProject Programming languages (merged with WikiProject Computer science)	80 (before merge)	2507 / 357	130 / 56	None	?	No
WikiProject Software	82	6773 / 1443	540 / 143	13/5	8,746	{{WikiProject Software}}
WikiProject Systems	45	4377 / 691	626 / 70		6	{{WikiProject Systems}}
Not (yet) included: WikiProject Cyberlaw (check redirect!), WikiProject IRC, WikiProject KDE, WikiProject Linux, WikiProject Nortel, WikiProject Apple Inc., WikiProject Malware, WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Microsoft Windows, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject .NET, WikiProject Method engineering, WikiProject RISC OS, WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative
WikiProject Logic
WikiProject Mathematics (for comparison)	661	19534 / 27375	22711 / 1185	33/23	27186	{{maths rating}}
To compare: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Military history

Compared to some other WikiProjects, the WikiProjects related to computing in a broad sense have been split into a large number of small projects: I believe this fragmentation of the community is not productive. In essence a WikiProject is just a shared talk page where people with similar interests can meet each other. Would anyone objects to merging all the smaller projects into the two largest projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science)? —Ruud 10:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The last time we proposed something like this, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft, we hit no consensus, so perhaps if there is one or two active editors in each group they might object. Although that seemed to be a "deletion", so not sure what you mean by a "merge"? Propose deletion of the others? Turn them into a "task force"? It is never clear to me what a "task force" is vs. a subproject anyway. Since we should be focused on quality of the articles, not number of members, I took the liberty of adding the number of "good" and "featured" articles. This does seem to follow a similar pattern. You could try, say, picking one project at a time to merge and see how far you get. The ones with zero good articles might be a start. But still not clear, for example, would Databases belong under "Computing" or "Computer science"? So it might be easier to just agree on some policy, like adding some notes to the project pages or an "edit notice" on the talk page saying that discussions more often happen on the parent pages.

I also added Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites which might be related, but perhaps not. And started to put WikiProject Internet in the table, but could not figure out what the second number was under page views. W Nowicki (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in no way related to any of these projects, but as a writer for the Signpost's WikiProject Report I've watched a lot of projects reorganize. Take a look at the structure of the old behemoth WP:MILHIST and the newly reorganized WP:USA for ideas. If you are planning to turn some of these projects into task forces, I'd suggest consolidating a few of the talk pages like WP:MILHIST currently does. For example, if WP:C++ and WP:Java became task forces of WP:Programming languages, all of the talk pages would redirect to the talk page for WP:Programming languages. This helps attract as many eyes as possible to comments posted on the talk page and should increase the likelihood that someone actually responds. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My primary motivation for restructuring would indeed be to have as few talk pages as possible. I would suggest retaining the old WikiProject's article assessment infrastructure if that is already in place. If that's the definition of a "tak force" (I'm not sure?) than that would be a good approach. —Ruud 12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support suggestions to approach projects with a view to redefining them as task forces, providing that they can retain their named identity as WikiProjects. I agree that fragmentation is not productive. It would be helpful to entice members of smaller projects to participate in larger ones, although places for specialist areas of interest do also remain important. I've not looked at the WP:MILHIST talk page consolidations but would expect that this may not always be desirable or appropriate - depending on what members of the individual projects think. A clear rationale should be forumulated before approaches are made. --Trevj (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I wonder, if it wouldn't be more helpful to (better) structure the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. I for instance am surprised, the term "Software" ( -> "Scope and goals" -> "8. Software" --- etc., etc.), isn't linked promimnently on top to Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, not small little on the side; and over there, it is not on top linked back to WikiProject Computing, saying something like "WikiProject Software is part of the WikiProject Computing" or something like that, making it easier working on either, so more work might actually get done. I for instance really wouldn't mind, System Center Configuration Manager be correctly (de)referenced (forward and backward, three-way, multi-way, and so on -> how and where appropriate) in Software deployment and Software distribution (not that it would actually help with my actual problem, but it would be a nice start). That surely applies to whole lot of a big bunch of Computing (wow, it doesn't reference the WikiProject Computing (prominently on top)) in Wikipedia, doesn't it? --Alien4 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It might be worth suggesting to such projects that their userboxes (e.g. {{User WP CS}}, {{User WikiProject Cryptography}}) are amended to use double boxes (if they don't already do so). As an example, refer to {{User WP RISCOS}}. --Trevj (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support consolidation and introduction of task forces. One could argue about which of the above projects should be included, of course. --Boson (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. One very active WikiProject is much better than a lot of WikiProjects with much less attention from editors. 1exec1 (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Status update

I've proposed to WikiProject Computer networking and WikiProject Computer Security to be merged into WikiProject Computing as a task force. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer networking#WikiProject restructuring and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security#WikiProject restructuring. —Ruud 11:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Software should be merged and eliminated. It's a hodgepodge of topics and it's hard to imagine people wanting to work particularly on that collection of articles. I think Databases should be converted to a task force at WP Computing. As for the others, I see problems with many of them, but don't have a clear idea how to leverage what's there, and am not inclined to delete what I don't understand.

Malware is already gone. Maybe we can clean up after the move a little better by archiving and redirecting the talk page, and perhaps blanking and even redirecting some of the project page. --Pnm (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now tried to further tidy up the malware related stuff, if you meant something like this: [1], [2], [3], [4]. If the discussions are to be archived to WT:COMPSEC, discussion prior toWikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force#Merge with WikiProject Malware to form WikiProject Computer Security could be moved but those closedown discussions should maybe be retained where they are (with the addition of {{Archive top}}, {{Archive bottom}}). -- Trevj (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely don't want to rush anything. This is only going to work if executed carefully and with support of existing participants of those projects. I agree that WP Software is a good next candidate (clearly a subcategory of this project, but with what seems to be a much smaller community). Databases is a bit problematic as it covers topic both relevant to WP Computing and WP Computer science and a lot of data sets (such a bibliographic) seem to have been tagged by/with this project. —Ruud 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Articles like Fourth normal form belong in Computer science and probably not in Computing (likely in scope, but I'm inclined to exclude them). Articles like Gmelin database are definitely not CS, and again, only marginally relevant to computing (certainly in scope, and I'm inclined to include them). For comparison, there are a lot of library science articles in this category too. They're obviously about using computers, but they're very domain-specific, and I'd say barely worth including. Websites, same deal.

Regardless of what you do with talk pages, are you thinking you want a Database theory task force in CS for the purpose of article tagging? --Pnm (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Logic is a joint taskforce of the mathematics and philosophy projects, and I think there are other, similar examples as well. Hans Adler 20:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the portals come into all of this? For example, WP:COMPSEC comes under Portal:Computer security, WP:COMP is listed at Portal:Information technology but is not backlinked. There's also Portal:Computer science, of course. -- Trevj (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

I posted a new proposal for a method to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases#Restructure_proposals into WP:COMP as a task force. Please edit it there, or discuss on that talk page. Hopefully we can reach consensus and knock off another one of these. – Pnm (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Class project

Hi Does anyone have an idea if a class project (along the lines of Wikipedia:United States Education Program) can start for Talk:Message_passing? Or any other means of rescue? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, please do. So far the "ambassador" programs have focused on creating many new poor quality articles which we then have to spend our time deleting. See above discussions. So it would be great if you can get anyone to help actually provide some lasting improvement to WIkipedia instead. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, just seeing this now. I'm sorry for the rude response you got. Publish/subscribe (rename proposed to Publish–subscribe pattern) strikes me as a significant topic with a lot more to say about it. If it were understandable to a general audience, I think people would read and enjoy it. As far as Message passing, it needs more citations, a lead section which summarizes the contents while still providing context, and some better historical narrative. You could also review the external links and further reading, and consider whether they belong (see WP:ELINK and WP:FURTHER) or whether the content should be simply added to the article. If you decide to take up either of these, post here and start a thread on the article's talk page, too. --Pnm (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It will be a while before I can even look at message passing. There are so many other things to fix. All of distriibuted computing needs serious help really. But there are not enough editors. History2007 (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello! I have noticed that there are two pages (LLVM and Low Level Virtual Machine) that are almost the same article. It looks as as if someone who didn't know how to move articles copied and pasted one article into the other. Unfortunately, no one nipped it in the bud, so they are slightly different, so making one redirect to the other would result in lost information. I have tagged the articles requesting that LLVM be merged into Low Level Virtual Machine, and normally I would do the merge myself, but I know absolutely nothing about this subject, it would be better for someone in a project that supports the article could do it. Could some member of this project do the merge for me? Thanks and happy editing! pluma♫ ♯ 18:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I imagine someone else will do this before I do, but I'll take a stab at figuring out the differences between the two using a sandbox. If the changes are trivial, should be pretty easy to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: The two articles are identical. I opened both pages in separate windows, copied all the wiki markup from LLVM first, pasted it to a sandbox and submitted, then copied the wiki markup from the other article and pasted it into a new revision on the sandbox, then diffed the two. Aside from a quick note at the top to mark which version was which, the contents are character-for-character identical. I'll redirect the acronym now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, duh. No wonder they're identical - someone already did the redirect. I should pay more attention. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

System healthchecks

Hi. I was looking for an article on the subject of IT system healthchecks and couldn't find one. What are the views of members of this project on whether this topic is significant enough to warrant an article? SP-KP (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The best way to find out is to start looking for sources. Once you have the best sources you can find which meet the guideline on reliable sources, if they seem sufficient for an article, evaluate them against the notability guidelines. If you post sources here I'd be happy to give my opinion. – Pnm (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Free software categories

There is a rather problematic categorization pattern that I've come across several times, most recently in Category:Computer algebra systems and Category:Theorem proving software systems. For Computer algebra systems the tree looks as follows:

• Category:Computer algebra systems
  • Category:Free computer algebra systems
  • Category:Linux computer algebra system software

The result being that Axiom (computer algebra system), GAP computer algebra system, Macaulay2, Maxima (software) and PARI/GP are "missing" from Category:Computer algebra systems. The license under which this software is distributed and the platforms they run under are some of the least relevant properties to categorize them by (as opposed to say, the domain of mathematics they specialize in, or in case of theorem proving software systems, the algorithm they employ.

If someone would want to categorize them by these properties, the correct way would be:

• Category:Computer algebra systems
  • Category:Computer algebra systems by license
    • Category:Free computer algebra systems
    • Category:Proprietary computer algebra systems
  • Category:Computer algebra systems by platform
    • Category:Linux computer algebra system software
    • Category:Windows computer algebra system software

With all still listed under Category:Computer algebra systems (which aren't that many articles to begin with). I'm somewhat inclined to nominate categories such as Category:Free computer algebra systems for deletion, simply because this would be the easiest way to upmerge the articles to the parent category. —Ruud 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the domain, I'd rename Category:Linux computer algebra system software to Category:Linux mathematical software and populate it further. In my experience it's hard to get categories deleted at WP:Cfd but I think there's a good case for expanding the scope of the Linux category. Unless software is dual licensed (both free and non-free) I don't like double-listing entries in categories like Category:Computer algebra systems and Category:Free computer algebra systems because it removes half the benefit of the subcategory, which otherwise would segregate the free and non-free items. – Pnm (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want segregate free and non-free items, create two categories: Category:Free computer algebra systems and Category:Proprietary computer algebra systems. But they have to be listed together in a single category as well, or segregated by a more relevant property such as the domain (general purpose, number theory, group theory, ...). (Non-)freeness might be important for most free software/open content zealots here at Wikipedia (myself included), but it's a quite arbitrary of mostly irrelevant property for the people (mathematicians in this case) who actually use this kind of software. —Ruud 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The articles can be multiple-listed in e.g. Category:Group theory. In my opinion the categories are more useful for assisting contributors than for supporting browsing by readers. Maybe expanding and refining {{Computer algebra systems}} or creating a stand-alone list would work better for helping readers browse a collection like this. – Pnm (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not be appropriate to list those articles directly under Category:Group theory (it would be appropriate to list them directly under Category:Free software though). I'm afraid you're still missing the real point here though. There are several different properties by which these pieces of software can be segregated: domain of mathematics they support, platform they run on, license they use, etc. The current (rather prominently used) categorization scheme/pattern only allows for segregation by a single of these properties. The chosen property often turns out to be (non-)freeness and this is in a lot of cases the least relevant property to segregate by. (Of course, there exists a huge systematic bias towards free software on Wikipedia, so I'm sure you can find some people would want to disagree...)

Secondly, the current scheme is ambiguous and difficult to use for editors (which include me). By only having Category:Free computer algebra systems, and no counterpart for proprietary software, you vaguely imply that Category:Computer algebra systems should only contain proprietary software. The actual situation is that Category:Computer algebra systems contains proprietary software, some dual-categorized free CASs while missing other free CASs.

Thirdly, the current scheme makes the category useless for readers (which also include me, I disagree with the claim that categories are only there for editors). Many may not be aware that, once arrived at Category:Computer algebra systems, they also have to look Category:Free computer algebra systems to find all articles on CASs.

See my proposal above how the scheme could be altered to support multiple properties. My personal opinion remains that this category is too small to warrant a further subdivision and that the easiest way to resolve this situation would be to simply upmerge and delete Category:Free computer algebra systems. —Ruud 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem when it comes to multiple categorization. However, I think your proposal is too rigid. It works well when a reader or editor wants to examine or classify the computer algebra systems, but it doesn't address how to subdivide Category:Free mathematics software by domain – which would merit a subcategory for computer algebra systems. The upmerge your propose would remove those articles from Category:Free mathematics software, and if you were to add them to that category too, its 46 articles would become 69.

I support double-listing or subdividing Category:Computer algebra systems by domain. You mentioned some possibilities above, but if categories like Category:Group theory software or Category:Computer algebra systems for group theory make sense to you, I completely support using them. (Again I don't know the domain. Those specific titles might not make sense.)

I generally support double-listing articles in pairs like these:

• Category:Group theory software and Category:Computer algebra systems
• Category:Group theory software and Category:Free computer algebra systems
• Category:Computer algebra systems for group theory and Category:Free computer algebra systems

I generally oppose double-listing articles in pairs like these:

• Category:Computer algebra systems for group theory and Category:Computer algebra systems
• Category:Free computer algebra systems and Category:Computer algebra systems
• Category:Free computer algebra systems and Category:Free mathematics software

I started to write some guidelines to propose but ran into surprising examples. For example: Microsoft Word and OpenOffice.org Writer are not in Category:Word processors. That seems odd to me, but it's a similar situation to the problem you see: e.g. Axiom (computer algebra system) not being in Category:Computer algebra systems. I counted at least 20 types of categories in which a single software article could be placed, which reinforces that some flexibility is necessary. I'll keep thinking about it. – Pnm (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree this is a difficult ontological questions and unfortunately their are rarely clear answers in philosophy. Let us follow the Socratic method. From you pairs of supported and opposed double-listings it follows that if we would subdivide CASs into free and non-free then we would have to subdivide CASs by their domain as well. I'd argue that:

1. The premise and the conclusion should in fact be independent choices for us to make.
2. There are so few CASs that I'd value them all being listed together in some category.

From this we must conclude that either:

1. You disagree with both arguments I just gave.
2. We should should not subdivide CASs into free and non-free (but dual-listing them in Category:Computer algebra systems and Category:Free mathematics software might be consistent as I cannot infer whether you support or oppose this.)
3. Your support or opposition to one or more dual-listings needs to be revised.

Which is/are true or where did I make a mistake in my reasoning? —Ruud 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you assign something the categories "computer algebra systems" and "free software" the intersection gives you "free computer algebra systems". Peter Flass (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If only MediaWiki supported Category intersections... Unfortunately it turns out that the required joins would bring down the database server. This is how the category system on the German Wikipedia is set up (again minus the ability to actually compute intersections). —Ruud 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not using the form quite right here, but here goes:

1. I hear that you value having all the articles in one category. I do agree they should be available in one place. But you haven't explained why, as a reader, you couldn't meet your needs just as well (or better) with a comparison-style list.
2. "From you pairs of supported and opposed double-listings it follows that if we would subdivide CASs into free and non-free then we would have to subdivide CASs by their domain as well." Not so. How do you reach that conclusion?
3. The number and diversity of articles in Category:Free mathematics software suggest subdividing it by the type of software. That's my argument to keep Category:Free computer algebra systems.
4. Given that, the only alternative which produces the result you want – all the CASs in a single category – is double listings in Category:Computer algebra systems and Category:Free computer algebra systems.
5. It's correct to say that I oppose redundant double-listing.
6. A more apt technical solution is category flattening, which applied to Category:Computer algebra systems would produce a list of all the CASs without a change to the existing category structure. – Pnm (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated iPad for FA

In case anyone has any comments - see this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Bell Labs nominated for GA

Plan 9 from Bell Labs article was nominated for GA review (at WP:GAN#COMP). Comments (and the review itself) are welcome! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cloud computing needs some love

Cloud computing is a very hot IT topic and yet our article has serious accessibly issues. Is anyone able to give it some love? 16,000 readers per day would appreciate it. --Kvng (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kibibyte, kilobyte and template: Information units

May be this question was discussed many times, but the current state with article pairs kibibyte–kilobyte, mebibyte–megabyte and so on is unsatisfactory. Almost all examples with 2¹⁰B resides in kilobyte, and the article kibibyte describes the usage of the term, not the unit itself. This is comparable to the situation with "hydron (chemistry)" a year ago, when there was actually no article about that substance and almost all links went to incorrect targets; happily now there is an article. The {{Information units}} navbox adds even more confusion with its label of "Traditional units". Probably, somebody thought something like "binary units now denoted as KiB, MiB and so on were traditionally referred as ‘kilobytes’ and ‘megabytes’", but such arrangement suggests that the information was traditionally measured in 10³B and 10⁶B which changed only after "IEC invented binary prefixes", which is opposite to the truth.

I think, there are only two permanent solutions: either to merge "kibibyte" with "kilobyte", "mebibyte" with "megabyte" and so on, or to put a dab hatnote to all these "kilobyte", "megabyte" and "gigabyte" that the article is about a decimal unit and that there is another one about a "corresponding" RAM unit. Existence of such article pairs but without hatnotes will result in readers' confusion and edit wars over change Kilobyte|KB to Kilobyte|kB or Kibibyte|KiB based not on how many bytes contains a unit, but what is its name in the sources. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to have all those articles. They should all be merged with Byte. —Ruud 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Ruud’s proposal would make the "byte" article eventually flooded by the same controversy that now constitutes most of the binary prefix article (so, there is little to read about binary prefixes). But the definition of byte, apart of k–K–Ki flamewars, is a very notable topic. Let us to dump all byte multiples to something like Systematic multiples of byte? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Binary prefix and the summary of that article in Byte#Unit multiples already cover the prefixes adequately, I don't think we need to create yet another article on the subject. With merging I referred mostly to any material not related to the prefixes. —Ruud 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody see much of "material not related to the prefixes" in, say, Gigabyte? I do think we need to made yet another article on the subject, by merging all these "megigabibytes" and parts of current "binary prefix" flame box. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim there was much material to be merged, but some of them have a few examples and history not yet mentioned in Byte or Binary prefix, other could indeed simply be redirected. It's not clear to me how you proposed article "Systematic multiples of byte" would not simply end up being an exact duplicate of Binary prefix. Could you elaborate on this? —Ruud 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

EXE and APP

Hi all,

I think that the articles APP (file format) and EXE are so similar that they should be merged into a single article, EXE and APP. They're both formats for program files, but on different platforms. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

The Doctahedron.EXE, 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there's some work to do but don't support that specific merge. APP (file format) should be converted to a disambiguation list and merged into APP. Its Symbian info box should be merged to SIS (file format). EXE could be merged into Executable and redirected there. – Pnm (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Except for the fact, that they both describe executable file formats, they have really nothing in common, different operating systems, different platforms, completely different formats and calling mechanisms. There's alot of stuff (that is, dozens of pages) that could be added to EXE (and probably will be added eventually) that would be totally out of scope in an APP or a generic Executable article, and vice versa. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The average Joe wouldn't know the difference. The distinction between .exe and .app could be discussed within the article. Cheers, The Doctahedron.EXE, 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - the average Joe does not care. The distinction is as obvious as an apple is not an orange.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll create a draft here. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A better title would be "Comparison of .exe and .app", but I feel that there is not enough information to warrant covering this. However, a link in the See Also sections of the existing articles to each other with the explanation like ".exe, a comparable file format used with Microsoft Windows" would be great.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are specific to different operating systems and differ in details. There is already an article (Executable) about the general concept. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: first, I really strongly oppose the title (if these were synonyms, we should have chosen one of them). Also I see no sense in picking two of formats and joining them. A better way to catch all of them (including a.out, ELF and many more) would be an article "Executable format" (currently a redirect to object file), but I really see no need for such merge. For now I would merge EXE to Portable executable and APP (file format) to APP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Are we ready to remove the tag from that page?
  24.50.159.185 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Computing will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in computer science history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Website about Zuse gone

I notice that a link http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/rechner_z1.html by Konrad Zuse's son Horst Zuse in the page Z1 is now defunct. I guess because he's retired as the Wikipedia page about Horst says he's 66. It was a really good site, is it anywhere around or what can be done about it? It also seems a shame if stuff by his son about him is lost. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous wikilinks to Cache

There are over 1000 wikilinks to Cache which has recently become a disambiguation page. Hundreds of them should be changed to Cache (computing) or one of the more specific articles web caching, database cache, CPU cache. Please take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Cache and fix a few if you're so inclined. – Pnm (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. There were about 250 pages, now one page left: List of French words and phrases used by English speakers (I believe it should indeed point to cache, though cache (disambiguation) may be even a better target). BTW, I noticed a significant amount of notices about hardware memory caching that are not related to CPU caching directly. May be the CPU cache article could be generalized in order to become a good target? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on a WikiProject home for Unicode articles.

There is a Request for Comment at the Writing Systems WikiProject on the home for articles and templates concerning the Unicode Standard / ISO/IEC 10646. As the main article on Unicode is tagged as part of the Computing WikiProject, we request the input of all members of this WikiProject and other interested parties to participate in the RfC. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)