Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 373: Line 373:
:: I agree. Not any more correct than "Eclectic Rubbish Lister" (another backronym for PERL). Extraction and reporting language is neither a programming paradigm nor a category of programming languages. Data extraction is a data operation, and so is the general ETL term. [[User:Fvillanustre|Fvillanustre]] ([[User talk:Fvillanustre|talk]]) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
:: I agree. Not any more correct than "Eclectic Rubbish Lister" (another backronym for PERL). Extraction and reporting language is neither a programming paradigm nor a category of programming languages. Data extraction is a data operation, and so is the general ETL term. [[User:Fvillanustre|Fvillanustre]] ([[User talk:Fvillanustre|talk]]) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
:::[[WP:PROD]]-ed accordingly. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
:::[[WP:PROD]]-ed accordingly. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What about [[awk]]? Isn't that also an extraction and reporting language?

Revision as of 23:57, 29 April 2011

WikiProject iconComputer science Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Template:Bountywp

Help needed with History of logic post-WWII

The article History of logic has been nominated for a featured article here. The nominating editor has asked for help concerning the post-WWII period (see this post). Any assistance would be appreciated

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Computer science articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing computer topics

I've begun a separate list of missing computer-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Yang's "physical linguistics"

I am inviting comments regarding the following articles:

Hans Adler 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOSP

Experts on cricket and video games have decided that this isn't the most important single-track operating systems conference. WP:CONSENSUS of the WP:RANDYs. What else can I say... Pcap ping 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More BLPs

I've tagged John Ousterhout and Mendel Rosenblum as unref'd BLPs. I don't have time to work on them myself. Pcap ping 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I fixed Rosenblum, 'cos it was quick. Pcap ping 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Till Tantau is up for deletion

He's a theoretical computer science prof, but perhaps better known for his LaTeX packages. Pcap ping 01:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article: Initialization (programming)

Initialization (programming) was just created but I don't really see how it is different from Declaration (computer science). I think any information that's unique to the new article should be merged to the other. I'm quite certain they don't both need to exist. I thought I'd let your project sort this out... thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely distinct things, though not sure either needs its own article. Could probably merge initialization into Variable (programming) as a "Variable initialization" section. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was surprised anything existed outside of a variable (programming) article. This isn't my project, so I'll let someone else handle it. I hope someone can make it right! thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback

Your expertise are requested!

A user is Requesting feedback on an article related to computing, if you can help out please do so here: Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Input/Output Control System.

WP:FEED provides general feedback about the quality of articles, helps users add references and such to get new pages higher on the quality ladder. Best regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 08:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non boolean circuit

For some reason, it seems wikipedia only knows about boolean circuit and the circuit complexity page is about boolean circuit complexity. Indeed when speaking of "circuit complexity" in computer theory, one can assume it is about boolean circuit if nothing else is said. But I'm surprised not to see informations about any other kind of circuit.

I just added a page Integer circuit and would appreciate to have some feedback. And I also wrote a circuit page in my draft section. Boolean and integers circuit are just two specials case of circuit, so I guess circuits in computer theory deserve an article. Can you tell me if you think it indeed deserve an article; what do you think of my article; and since circuit is already used, what name should I give to the page, is "Circuit (computer science)" correct ? Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight queens puzzle solutions

Eight queens puzzle solutions is being discussed for deletion here. I removed the prod because I remember the solutions as being notable for many in computer science, although it could be argued that the parent article (Eight queens puzzle) is sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example of the 8-bit two's-complement integers table

The table "8-bit two's-complement integers" at the start of the article is offset and needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdelong123 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WikiProject Computing

I think this WikiProject should be merged to WP:COMPUTING, shouldn't it? -- ekerazha (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? In the past WPCS participants have expressed a fairly strong feeling that the scopes of the Computing and CS projects are different. A while back someone proposed a shared talk page banner with the WP:COMPUTING project, but the participants in this project weren't even prepared to to do that, let alone merge the projects. You can find other discussions of the differences between the two projects here and here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the scopes of WP:COMPUTING (from their page) is Computer Science. I think the difference is not so clear, example: the Talk:Comparison of web application frameworks article is tagged for WP:COMPUTING, while the Talk:Model–View–Controller article is tagged for WP:COMPSCI. For the first article, one of the comparison items is "MVC? Yes/No". I think the two articles are correlated, but they are tagged to different WikiProjects. -- ekerazha (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So tag them as both. Or fix the tags as you see appropriate. Tagging of articles like that tends to be a bit scattershot. Although in this case I think it's probably right. A web app framework is a kind of tool used for designing a web applications - as such it falls into the broad WP:COMPUTING scope. In contrast, MVC is an approach to structuring software, which may be used by web app frameworks but also by other kinds of software - as such, it's a "principle" of sofwtare design, and falls more into the scope of WP:COMPSCI (which is more about principles than specific implementations).
As for the rest of your argument, are you also suggesting that
all be merged into WP:COMPUTING? They all lie within the scope of computing. Several are specifically mentioned in the same list that you see "computer science" in. Note that the WP:COMPUTING project page specifically says "We have a very broad scope, so we hope to collaborate and communicate with other Wikiprojects that overlap our domain."
--Allan McInnes (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Computing is not the MCP of all computer-related Wikipedia articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:COMPSCI should stand and WP:COMPUTING may be dissolved or its top-level content pushed into more specific "sub-projects". All of COMPSCI falls under COMPUTING, by definition, so whatever is COMPUTING and not COMPSCI (*cough* Information Systems? Information Technology? EE topics in telecommunications?) may be more appropriately pushed into categories like that, rather than usurped into a non-substantive umbrella group. I'm new to the conversation, though. I definitely agree that there should be a uniform assessment process (and maybe a mutual assessment request process) that unifies the two projects for articles that are tagged for both, as the discussion here mentions. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other "Bibliographic databases in computer science"? (New category for them)

I created a category, "Bibliographic databases in computer science". Some of these were formerly in a "Computer science papers" category which I noticed was being reorganized. Current contents are

  • ACM Portal
  • CiteSeer
  • Digital Bibliography & Library Project
  • IEEE Xplore

Please add any other relevant databases. The category stuff (i.e. putting it in the right place in the hierarchy, improving descriptions) also needs to be done; I've asked for help with that, too. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer science articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Computer science articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article metasyntactic variable

A movenotice inviting discussion has been added to the article, suggesting to rename it "metavariable". Please see the discussion there and take part in the process if you are interested. Input from persons with thorough background in logic is most welcome. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 10:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Request for feedback

There's a dispute over article contents at Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization. I've already made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology, I'm not sure which is the correct protocol to also request for comment here at WP:Computer science? Diego Moya (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions wanted at Talk:Particle swarm optimization

There are some disagreements over whether we should include a section of external links to all the relevant open source projects.:

We could use some objective opinions from this WikiProject.

Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computation of logarithms

Does anyone know what algorithms are typically used in programming languages etc. to calculate logarithms? (We have Binary logarithm#Algorithm, but I'm not sure this is how it is actually done). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Logarithm#Calculation—You can find other ways in the literature, e.g. Donald Knuth's 1997 The Art of Computer Programming 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 Fundamental Algorithms pp. 22–26. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ousterhout's dichotomy

It's at AfD. Opinions would be welcome. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Model

If there are some participants here familiar with the actor model, that article could use more eyes. It's one of the articles that was the subject of an arbitration case and which is still frequently visited by IP editors to add additional unpublished papers as references. As a mathematical recursion theorist, I'm not an expert in that particular area, and so it would be helpful to have some actual computer scientists more familiar with the area keep the page on their watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Optimization algorithms

I removed a lot of heuristics from this template, because those removed are not discussed as important in optimization textbooks and journals (regardless of their merits in IEEE transactions on swarming fireflies, etc.). Second opinions would be desirable. Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template should concentrate on the most important methods, but not that information should be dropped. The removed heuristics could be grouped by class by creating new categories for them (for example, all those found in the previous "Bio-inspired algorithms" section), and the category could be linked from the template. Diego Moya (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename two large groups of articles

I proposed renaming two large groups of articles from Article (computer science) to Article (computing) and another group form Article (computer science) to Article (computer programming).

Please give your input here. Thanks! --Pnm (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kreinovich

Aid at Vladik Kreinovich would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of users affiliated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are removing external links to implementations of algorithms (this includes those implementations that are part of academically developed frameworks which have been described in academic literature). In my opinion this is setting a bad precedent and contrary to usual practice on articles related to this project. Could anyone interested in this issue, pro or contra, join the discussion at Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code. Cheers, —Ruud 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reentrant (subroutine)

I reverted this good-faith IP edit due to unexplained deletions and spelling/grammar errors (which do not instill confidence). However, I recognize there might be some legitimate issues the editor was trying to address; I lack skill in the area of threads, so I was wondering if someone who did could look over the edit and try to properly incorporate any accurate, constructive changes. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead section, but there still several problems with the rest of article. —Ruud 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOUML

At the WP:RS Noticeboard, sources for this article were found to be unreliable, although I don't speak Italian, Czech or Chinese. fr:BOUML has a much better english bibliography, therefore we need some help in evaluating the following web references:

  • Steven Kearney and James F. Power (2007). Université nationale d'Irlande (ed.). Benchmarking the accuracy of reverse engineering tools for Java programs: a study of eleven UML tools (Technical Report: NUIM-CS-TR-2007-01) (PDF). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Behnaz Changizi, Natallia Kokash, Farhad Arbab (2010). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ed.). A Unified Toolset for Business Process Model Formalization (PDF). p. 6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

We are also looking for someone who can access and read the following sources on print:

  • Esra Erdem, Fangzhen Lin, Torsten Schaub, Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning: 10th International Conference, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-04237-9, 2009, p.458-459
  • Dorota Huizinga, Adam Kolawa , Automated defect prevention: best practices in software management, Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, ISBN 978-0-470-04212-0, 2007, p.398
  • Fabrice Kordon, Yvon Kermarrec, Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe 2009: 14th Ada-Europe, Springer, ISBN 978-3-642-01923-4, 2009, p.154

Please reply at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML. Thank you very much, Comte0 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that an AfD is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOUML. Comte0 (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Reverse computation

I just noticed a peer review was requested for Reverse computation a couple months ago. Any takers? --Pnm (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Isolation Articles

Hi guys! While doing disambiguation 'patrol' I stumbled across two interesting articles: Temporal isolation and Temporal isolation among virtual machines. The former is an uncited stub, the latter seems to be a promising start on (what is to me) a niche topic. It looks like one or two users created the articles and left them in Wikispace. Since then they've seen minor improvements, but could benefit from expert attention.

My experience with CS is strictly applied, so while I understand what the articles are talking about I don't feel comfortable in editing them for content. In the spirit of SOFIXIT, I've made some attempts to to tag, wikify and categorize these two articles. Maybe someone more familiar with the MOS can take these articles under their wing (or at least review them). Mostly I just wanted to make this community aware of these two overlooked articles, I think they can be improved with time and some more inbound links. Thanks. DubiousIrony yell 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fast inverse square root — remove "F-bomb" expletive from quoted source code?

Please go to Talk:Fast inverse square root#Take out the F-bomb comment for a discussion of whether a vulgar expletive contained as a comment in a quoted piece of source code should be kept or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operator-precedence grammar

I'd like to edit the Operator-precedence grammar article. It seems to me that the "References" and "External links" sections should be at the bottom of the page, and the section that now follows them should be wikified (section headings and such). If the material is from external sources, those should be acknowledged. Also, something could be done about the introductory sentence.

I'm not sure how to go about editing the article, since it's in the scope of WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Computer science. I'm a computer scientist with a special interest in parsing. Should I just go ahead and start editing, or would you prefer to edit it yourselves? -- UKoch (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead. The projects mean nothing special as far as controlling editing - they are just central points for discussing general issues with the articles. I'll stick on a general help template on your talk page with the standard intro but it doesn't sound like you'll need to look at them much. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I've started editing, but I think there are still several issues with this article, and I could use some help:
-- UKoch (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated PSO

I declined a WP:PROD on this article but am sending it to AFD on request from the original PRODer. Some input from those familiar with computer science and mathmatics would be helpful. The discussion can be viewed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Career domains in computer science

The article Career domains in computer science has come up in a deletion discussion that could use some input from this project. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Invasive weed optimization algorithm for deletion

The article Invasive weed optimization algorithm is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasive weed optimization algorithm (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Optimering, Metaheuristics, and Template:Optimization algorithms

I posted the following on the talk page at "algorithm". Please respond there.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the promotion of (meta)heuristics by editor Optimering over the last year, including his edit at the Template:Optimization algorithms, where he removed approximation algorithm and added ant colony optimization from the section on combinatorial optimization. He also removed the Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt articles from the gradient-related section; these are the most used methods in all of optimization, according to Lemaréchal, Gilbert, Bonnans, and Sagazstibal (sic) and science citation index counts.

"Optimering" has already had one "heads-up" at the COI noticeboard. He has been warned about OR and self promotion (at risk of blocking) at his self-titled discussion "Block_threat_to_expert_contributor" at the administrators' noticeboard. and has boasted about his own standing in the world of metaheurstics at AFD.

Category:POSIX web browsers

Category:POSIX web browsers is the subject of an ongoing discussion here. Input from this WikiProject's members would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review seriousness v. proposed deletion as parody of new article Names of small numbers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers

Computer Science WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers

Please also consider what additions from binary and other numbering systems relevant to computer science, circuit media, and other engineering and computing topics should be made to this topic as a kept article.

Thank you. Pandelver (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source Code

The usage of Source Code is under discussion. It currently redirects to source code. The discussion is at Talk:Source Code (film) .

184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif

File:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Ch interpreter

The Ch interpreter article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter. FYI.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XCP

Is XML Control Protocol relevant for wikipedia or a hoax? If it is worth having it should be linked to from some articles. bamse (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is a hoax, that's fine. What matters is if there are good sources about it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs)
Seems to fail WP:N. An article about a joke is fine, provided some very good indications of notability are available. In this case, my guess is that such indications are not available and the article should be proposed for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might be merged into April Fool's Day RFC, but I doubt it's notable enough. 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK: Criss-cross algorithm for linear optimization

A new article on the Criss-cross algorithm for linear optimization has been nominated for Did You Know?:

A (three-dimensional) cube

Corrections and comments are especially welcome. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four-stage model of data compression

Nominated as original research. —Ruud 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer science papers released under a free license

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Academic_papers_under_a_free_license. Please comment there. Dcoetzee 11:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special case (computer science)

I moved special case to special case (computer science), since that's what the article was originally about and that was still most of its content. Then I changed the new redirect page titled special case into an article about the traditional meaning of the term (think back to a couple of years ago when you were in high school before electronic computers were invented—say around the year 1925 or 1725 or so—and remember how the term "special case" was used in your geometry course). Then I looked at "what links here" for both articles. I find that all but possibly one of the surprisingly small number of articles that link to special case probably should link to that, and not to special case (computer science). I'm unsure of that one. But nothing currently links to special case (computer science), except a hatnote atop the other article. So I tagged it an "orphan".

Therefore you people (you know who you are) should get busy and find a few zillion articles that should link to special case (computer science) and put the links there. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should just be deleted. It's not standard CS terminology as far as I'm aware -- at least it will not, without clarification or qualification, be understood by computer scientists as meaning what the article claims (namely a pathologic input pattern that some algorithm under discussion is unprepared for handling gracefully). Of course, such things are also special cases, but it is not the idea the words "special case" by themselves evoke.
I have WP:PRODded it. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in this table of the “Hard disk drive” which includes a column comparing binary prefixes to describe capacities. We welcome your input--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback: X-fast tries

I wrote an article on x-fast tries, a data structure for storing integers from a bounded domain. I think the article is within the scope of this project and I'd appreciate any feedback. Mangarah (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback: Y-fast tries

I wrote an article about y-fast tries, a data structure for bounded universes that improves on x-fast tries. Any and all constructive feedback is appreciated. Rf insane (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011

computer science vs. computer programming vs. programming

Hello, I've recently looked at some articles from Category:Programming constructs and noted that they often contain different titles in parentheses, sometimes "computer science", sometimes "computer programming" or the shorter version "programming". I was wondering if it might be possible to give those titles more consistency so that it's easier to locate them. Personally, I'd take "computer programming" because, as the category title already says, it's computer programming, and "programming" alone is too ambigious. However, I'm also open to other suggestions. Let me know what you think. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like "computer programming" best for the kind of articles linked directly from Category:Programming constructs like Namespace or Operator, and maybe Scope. For articles under the subcategories, especially those under Category:Data types and Category:Control flow, I find that many of them are better placed under "computer science" - Closure, Fiber... but not Label, for example.
In summary, those with a theoretical definition or related to principles of code execution should get _(computer science). Those more practical or related to the practice of writing code should go to _(computer programming). Particular programs or libraries should go to _(computing). Diego Moya (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a black and white area. Personally I'd tag all theoretical concepts, i.e. those studied in programming language theory and applying to large sets of languages, including scope and probably even operator, with "computer science" and concepts related to a specific language, articles like keyword, libraries, tools, etc. with "computer programming". That still leaves us with the question about what to do with software engineering topics. "Computer programming" as well, or a separate tag "software engineering"?
On a related note, I've been considering to merge WikiProject Programming languages with this one, and several other small, near death, project with WikiProject Computing. —Ruud 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reorganize WikiProject Programming languages into a task force? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support at least standardizing "(programming)" to "(computer programming)". Anything else probably needs case-by-case consideration, using roughly the principles Diego and Rudd outlined. I agree that consistency in this area is currently a clusterfsck. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraction and reporting languages

I dont' think this is an actual thing, aside from being an arbitrary substring of one of Perl's backronyms. Can anyone confirm? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'a thing', however not a programming paradigm. See Data extraction. Morton Shumway—talk 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I agree. Not any more correct than "Eclectic Rubbish Lister" (another backronym for PERL). Extraction and reporting language is neither a programming paradigm nor a category of programming languages. Data extraction is a data operation, and so is the general ETL term. Fvillanustre (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD-ed accordingly. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about awk? Isn't that also an extraction and reporting language?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science&oldid=426647850"