Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Draft: Brainchip: Recommend rewrite |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
could someone review the [[Draft:Brainchip]] page? [[User:Birdmanoftech|Birdmanoftech]] ([[User talk:Birdmanoftech|talk]]) 00:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
could someone review the [[Draft:Brainchip]] page? [[User:Birdmanoftech|Birdmanoftech]] ([[User talk:Birdmanoftech|talk]]) 00:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:I recommend to start anew using only reliable sources (see [[WP:RS]], short definition: major news media, renowned tech publications, science journals etc.). Remove all patents and other primary sources (eg. Brainchip webpage). From my experience, publishing an article about a company is one of the hardest tasks here on EN Wiki. The article in its current state has no chance to get an approval from the AfC reviewers. Good luck! [[User:Pavlor|Pavlor]] ([[User talk:Pavlor|talk]]) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:37, 14 January 2023
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computing and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 91 days |
Computing Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Taskforce WikiProject Unicode – proposal
Hi. I propose to start a WP:Taskforce WikiProject Unicode, as a subproject of both Wikiproject Writing Systems (WSYS) and WikiProject Computing (COMP). The Taskforce be housed here, as a subpage of WP:COMP.
- Scope would the topic of Unicode and its related pages & topics; also the points of interface with, for example, scripts, ISO 15924, symbols, computing, fonts; the Wikidata connection; possibly the more hardcore Wiki Interface (Java, CSS) and WP:TemplateStyle.
- To do: time to build a Unicode article for TFA :-). Personally as an editor, in templates mostly, I could use a systematic overview of Unicode pages. Also, often I meet questions e.g. re template improvement or articles quality, I want to discuss more widely & thoroughly with engaged editors. I think the Standard could be described better in the articles (tbh, I only understand the workings of the Standard not from articles only, but by doing extra research). It would raise the quality standard. Anyway, we can aim to have more Unicode FA's.
- Activity: I don't expect an overly active WProject (few are these days), but any Unicode discussion with involved editors is welcome. Currently, they appear in scattered places—while they relate to a wider Unicode issue. Central talk can improve the Unicode article standard.
- Resources: A central repository would be welcome. Need a
{{WikiProject Unicode}}
project banner, quality assessment, Article Alerts.
- Members and support: Please indicate below if you are potentially interested as a project member.
- First job: The WProject needs a logo! Design can start, see & join the future
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unicode]]
for the selection.
-DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposal administration
- Pinging to invite @1234qwer1234qwer4, Babel, BabelStone, BarrelProof, Bruno Unna, Calidum, DePiep, Dominicmgm, Drmccreedy, M.h.gholamii, Mohmad Abdul sahib, Old Naval Rooftops, Red Slash, Spekkios, Vanisaac, and 力: (Users present at Talk:Unicode). -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami and John Maynard Friedman: invitation, from earlier interest. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notified talk:Unicode, WP:Writing systems. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly overlapping scope topics & projects (unsorted list): ISO 15924 (WP:WSYS); i18n, iw (Wikidata?); Help:Multilingual support, WP:UNICODE, Wiki Interface (Java, CSS), WP:TemplateStyle.
Support & membership
- Support & member as initator. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support & member though maybe not the most active. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support & member I have some ideas about templates and bots for facilitating maintenance. VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 18:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
Thoughts? DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe outside the scope of your proposal, but our lists of code points and associated images are duplicated in multiple other wikipedias and 30 wiktionaries. They're mostly all identical to one other, except for the names of the blocks sometimes being translated. Someone objected that rather than spending the time updating them all whenever unicode updates or someone adds images, they should be centralized at wikidata and transcluded, but I haven't seen any movement since. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Worth pursuing. A central wikipoint of contact at enwiki would surely help then. Some work on Wikidata is in progress. DePiep (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea but I don't have any desire to administer or lead the project. I'm sure I'll participate at some level. My sarcastic logo for the project would, of course, be U+FFFD � REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. I like the idea of using the same data across multiple Wikipedias. I've tried to do that with the multilingual roadmap image. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Most lax way would be to have the WProject talkpage on your watchlist, then cpoints of interest will roll by. We should make i18n & iw part of scope then; another wiki-interface interface. Request granted, you won't be appointed Chancellor of the Task. (As for the logo: we can make the U+userbox accept ones favourite character. Mine could be an animated diacritic? The Non-breaking spiritual space?) DePiep (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, my familiarity with the topic is very limited. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to explicitly add to the project scope the maintenance of ISO 15924 as well. VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Some 75% of these ISO scripts are in Unicode, and more are/havebeen researched. To be done by friendly takeover from parent WP Wrinting Systems. Not a prerequisite I assume, so can be an early initiative. DePiep (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Do not archive yet. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Fixed point requested move
Hi all, I requested a move from Fixed point (mathematics) to Fixed point which is currently a disambiguation page for Fixed point (mathematics), Fixed-point arithmetic, and a few other topics. This move is somewhat controversial as several people have objected that Fixed-point arithmetic precludes Fixed point (mathematics) from being a primary topic. A few months ago a similar move request was closed as "no consensus", so please join in at Talk:Fixed point (mathematics)#Requested move 4 October 2022 so that this discussion can reach a definitive conclusion. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
improve our Random-access memory article
This article, Random-access memory, was (rightly) marked High Importance by the defunct Computer hardware task force.
It is sadly in a bit of a mess, with no clear division between the various technologies that carry the RAM moniker as the most pressing issue.
It is currently C-class only, a quality rating I agree with. It just isn't very good - more of a hodge podge of facts than a clearly thought out and structured encyclopedic article. A poor state for an article on such a central concept to be in, if you ask me.
If there are any experts in the audience, please consider spending some quality time on this article.
CapnZapp (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've added it to my review project but it will probably be more than a year before I would start working on it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Human-in-the-loop § Merger proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Human-in-the-loop § Merger proposal. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested move 28 October 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Request: Suggestions on how to improve draft of Eclipse Trace Compass
I wrote the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Trace_Compass. The reasoning: The project LTTng referred to it, and Trace Compass has a certain level of notability: it is used in university labs both for research and teaching purposes, it has papers in IEEE and ACM published discussing its uses and is discussed in 4 (known) books, with a fifth one coming soon. I am a developer/product owner of this product and have MAJOR conflicts of interest. I am striving to make sure the article is not an ad. I appreciate the reviews, and realize I may have been wrong by basing this page on the lttng one. Would there be any resources available to help write the article in a more "conformal way" to the wikipedia standard? would it be better to be a paragraph in the eclipse software page? Advice is appreciated.
Thanks! (and sorry for using reviewer's time inefficiently. Mattatericsson (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- First red flag is a ref bombing of "WHO" uses your application. The right way would be to write what these sources say about the software. Note the coverage in the sources should be broad enough (eg. one short paragraph about the application is probably not suficient for notability in the Wikipedia sense). Pavlor (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Post-merger issues on LendingClub page
Hey there! I'm a LendingClub employee looking to resolve a few issues with LendingClub's article. There's been a merger, where parts of the (now-deleted) LendingClub Bank page have been integrated into the LendingClub one, resulting in a LendingClub article that contains a fair amount of outdated information and inaccuracies. I don't want to get too in the weeds here; you can read about the post-merger issues in detail over at the LC Talk page. Myself and another editor are trying to go about this the right way, building consensus on next steps. Because I have a COI, I understand that I don't really get a vote in this process, and so it would be great if an independent editor or two from this WikiProject could assess the situation and weigh in. Thanks so much! EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
SaaS company seeking assistance
Hi, WikiProject editors. I am here on behalf of my employer, Diligent Corporation, to seek updates to the articles about Diligent Corporation and its CEO, Brian Stafford, in compliance with Wikipedia's COI rules. As of now, I have two open requests:
Diligent Corporation
Brian Stafford (businessman)
Diligent has been trying to get these requests reviewed, but the process appears to have stalled. I'm happy to discuss these requests with editors on the article Talk pages. Thanks. MSDiligent (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
schematics as references
I was thinking about writing something about the system board used in Pacman arcade cabinets. CPU, memory, number of sprites, etc. But i am afraid they are going to toss it out. As they should, because i could be a dummy and technical details can be misunderstood or misleading even for a competent person. On top of that, i think there is an error in the schematics and that makes the whole thing more difficult still.
How to proceed? Wikipedia does not like claims that are not verifiable for a layman, but on the other hand there is no ambiguity there, so it is not the kind of original research where something is invented or estimated or interpolated. Nowakki (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think too technical is a problem, as long as you can write an intro that is reasonably accessible. See WP:Technical for how we typically approach difficult topics in math and physics. The main question I would have is that because schematics by themselves are often primary sources--is there secondary sourcing for interpretation of the schematics? Interpreting a primary schematic directly would seem to be original research. But if the schematic is discussed as part of a larger secondary work on arcade electronics, etc. I could see using it as a source. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
00:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)- given that these are not schematics for ghz radio transceivers of moon rockets, i thought maybe this project has the pull to give a thumbs up to such an analysis in the eyes of whoever is guarding the quality of the existing pacman article. The game has enough historical significance to warrant the hope that people may be interested enough to dedicate some of their attention. i just wanted to generate some encouraging context, before i waste my time on another round of pointless debate with negatively minded wiki lawyers. You may be technically correct, but you didn't give the answer i was hoping for buddy. Nowakki (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Move request concerning all "version history" articles
See this discussion.
This would have repercussions on all "[SOFTWARE] version history" articles. Feel free to weigh in. DFlhb (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Atlas Intelligence Group a international pro hacker group
A very interesting Hacker group which first drew a lot of attention from Israeli cyber researchers due to cyber attacks on israeli major corporations and government websites.
I think it’s really worth to write an article about this group. Kushiratu (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Printer (computing)#Requested move 17 December 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Printer (computing)#Requested move 17 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Cpulist
I opened a discussion at Template_talk:Cpulist#Release_price asking about keeping the historic release price in the tables for lists of microprocessors. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Brainchip
could someone review the Draft:Brainchip page? Birdmanoftech (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I recommend to start anew using only reliable sources (see WP:RS, short definition: major news media, renowned tech publications, science journals etc.). Remove all patents and other primary sources (eg. Brainchip webpage). From my experience, publishing an article about a company is one of the hardest tasks here on EN Wiki. The article in its current state has no chance to get an approval from the AfC reviewers. Good luck! Pavlor (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)