Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

Wikinazis??

I removed wikinazis, it seems like a slang term more suitable for a site such as urban dictionary. Any disagreement?

Restructure needed

These categories are real unbalanced - some with a handful of entries, some with at least 100. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make alphabet headings into sections?

The Software section is unwieldy and could benefit from having a TOC entry for each letter entry. We might try using a Compact tables of contents. — Teratornis 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried this and it messed up the TOC, so I reverted to the previous version. I might try again if I find an example of a page that does it right. — Teratornis 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I should RTFM here:

and see if I can convert the alphabetic pseudo-section-headings into real section headings, while keeping the TOC manageable. — Teratornis 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at this by creating a new template, {{PseudoHeading}}, and using it in conjunction with {{AlphanumericTOC}}. By using PseudoHeading instead of actual section headings, the main TOC is kept uncluttered. — Davnor 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSS (Operations Support Systems)

What is OSS (operations support systems) as used in the Telecom (Billing?) Industry?

See Operations Support System and Operational Support Systems — Davnor 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save a VfD

...and don't create these articles. If they don't exist, it's because they were not meant to exist... m.e. 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Processing

I created a redirect to Real-time computing as I see it as pretty much synonymous with Real Time Processing. Should anyone disagree, please comment on my home page and we can try to build an article that differentiates between the two. Otherwise, I will remove it from this list some time in the future.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No comments. I'm pulling it from the list and considering the issue closed. --KNHaw ^(talk) 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon's algorithm

I created the requested CS article Cannon's algorithm. I couldn't find much more info after a brief search. I'll try to download Cannon's PhD thesis to see whether I can find more there. For the time being, could someone more experienced in distributed algorithms improve it? NerdyNSK 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Comer

I created the requested page Douglas E. Comer. Could you help improve it? NerdyNSK 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime A*

For anyone interested in either writing this article or merging into A*, here is a link to a research paper describing it: http://www.jair.org/papers/paper2096.html. I'll try to do it sometime in the next week if nobody else does it. HebrewHammerTime 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against encyclopedic entry requests.

Libraries are an encyclopedia type entry, and in fact large and famous libraries would even get entries in encyclopedias, and yet many users are DISCRIMINATING against online library pages. Why? because a company is making money off it, that's the best answer I can figure out. I've tried requesting a page, (they deleted it) I've tried making my own pages, (they speedy deleted them) I tried hangon with an argument for the page, and they went through and DELETED the articles so that the discussion pages were deleted, thus removing my argument for the existence of said pages.. I mean come on this is the 21st century and the libraries of the 21st century allow you to get books online, for no cost to you, and any attempt to ask for, create or request pages of this sort are getting rapidly eradicated within hours of their request. GET A CLUE do people delete Minnesota Vikings entries? what the heck does a sport team have to do with an encyclopedia? if the article is too short why not mark it a stub, what's with trying to eradicate all existence and any logs of edits done in a completely unfair manner with no room for discussion or counter point????? I am starting to keep track of the users who delete these pages, because DIGITAL LIBRARIES ARE A PART OF THE MODERN ERA. They will make print encyclopedias before they make wikipedia because of the deletion and discrimination against them! How petty are these people? there is genuine need for unbiased information about online libraries, because to the layman they are a new concept not something they'd know about without reading about it in say, an online news article which would have less details than a wiki entry, and when they go to wiki to try and learn more, or create a page they're shot down by crazy 20th century relics who think libraries deal in printed books only! if you think specific entries don't belong in the article made specifically for them then what is wrong with suggesting elsewhere to put the information??? I'm confused and i want answers what's so wrong that OverDrive Digital media services is blacklisted off wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesuki (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There seems to be an article on OverDrive,_Inc., if this is what you meant. However, there's a single vote for deletion. -- 80.136.89.47 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find/Replace

I apologize for cluttering up the Talk page, but I'm not sure in what category to put a request for an article on the Find/Replace function used in many (consumer-oriented) text-editors. I haven't found an article so far that addresses this. N Vale (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unqualified/indiscriminate list needing clean-up

This 'list' is clearly outdated and full of items which really don't need their own article. For example, I've already removed FISMO_Roles, as it was clearly meant to be Flexible_single_master_operation. I'll keep working on qualifying & culling the list, and maybe even starting some articles to get them off this list. If I think any removal's may be disputed, I'll list the removed items here.Whippen (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned website - Removed, as this is not a widely accepted term, so I'm not even sure what is it (supposed to be) about. My best guess is a compromised host used in a phishing context, in which case I don't believe a separate article is required.Whippen (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t know why User:ErikTheBikeMan delete my part?????!!!!!

I strongly doubt that the following article is unnecessary...
Comparison of Visual Basic and Visual Basic .NET - the reason of creation is stated in the section Adding a link of the page Template talk:DotNET. UU (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naum (chess)

Naum (4.0) is currently the second strongest computer chess engine. Would deserve an article IMO. See also CCRL ratings and the Naum homepage. I have started the german Wikipedia article but I think a native english speaker should start the english article. --80.121.56.75 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is this the right place?

I'm not 100% sure this is the right place, but I added a request for an article about A4tech, I didn't add a link to their site in the actual page cause I dunno if that would be ok or not. I've not used many of their products (but only because it is not the type of thing I buy with much frequency), but I like what I've tried so far, either way, I don't know enough about them to write an article even if didn't prefer their products over the products of other brands, so I would like someone with more info and in better position for not have their unbiasedness questioned to create an article for it (aparently there used to be an article about the company but it got deleted 'cause according to the log thing people thought it was advertisment-like, I dunno why it wasn't re-worked to be better instead of deleted, but I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should have an article about it, preferably a good one of course :) --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]