Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

Atari TT Motorola 68030 or Inmos T800

Years ago I owned an Atari 520STFM. I used to read ST magazines, ST User IIRC. After the ST, came the Mega ST1 (1MB RAM) and Mega ST2 (2MB RAM). Your pictures of the TT look like those. I can't remember if they used a later Motorola 68K series, but I think that it was just a 68000. One issue of the magazine that read had a big picture of a huge looking machine, which was called the Atari TT, which, it was explained within, had one to several Inmos T800's. The T800 was designed to be parallel, with four external buses, and was the fastest processor in the world when it was launched, giving about 10 MIPS and 1.5 MFLOPS. I have never heard of a machine called an ATW800. Edmund X Exxxz (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll mention in particular, that under debate is the option of having RFCs automatically-linking the title of such articles in those cases. AKA instead of something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

we could have (with autolinking), something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125.

without having to manually set the url to be "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc125". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of CAD

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move at IP forwarding

Hi all

Please could members of this project go to Talk:IP forwarding and participate in the discussion there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with an old orphan - All-in-One

Hey folks! The article All-in-One has been an orphan with no references for 7 years. A quick Google search for the term doesn't turn up much. Is this a common term that merits its own article? If so, any improvements to the article would be much appreciated (bonus points if you can de-orphan it). If not, we can consider taking it to AfD. Thanks a bunch and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Description of an origin in USB needs rewrite

(A sentence needs rewriting by someone who's sure of the subject, which I am not. In fact, according to recent (September 2016 to date) contributions to the Talk page, many aspects of the article need rewriting. I've posted a shorter version of this note there, § "Firstly conceived for...".)

The start of the second paragraph of USB § USB mass storage / USB drive is meaningless as written, and hard or impossible for the non-specialist to interpret (underline added):

Firstly conceived and still used today for optical storage devices (CD-RW drives, DVD drives, etc.), several manufacturers offer external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drives.

What was "Firstly conceived for" all that? Not the manufacturers. Not the "external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drive". Nor, apparently, the USB interface itself, which, according to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article, was "designed to standardize the connection of [a wide range of] computer peripherals (including keyboards, pointing devices, digital cameras, printers, portable media players, disk drives and network adapters) to personal computers." What, then?

The "obvious" guess is the USB interface: probably obvious to the computer-savvy writer(s) of this article, who already knew that, but not to everybody. I'm somewhat computer-literate and that's just my best guess. The computer-illiterate could be hopelessly confused. An encyclopedia, and especially a basic-level article like this one, is meant to help any reader, not just those who don't need its help. --Thnidu (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Active users?

Hi all,

I've recently checked into the list of WikiProject Computing/Members.

Could this list be improved by stating which members are currently active or inactive or haven't made a contribution in quite some time.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the list could be improved. I have no objection to improving the membership list. Is there something larger to be achieved by having an improved list? ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It will help give a more accurate picture on current users and help allow for better collaboration for article improvements. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a template ready to use, but require a consensus and approval before I start sending requests for updates. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to improving the list but if you could provide more detail about how exactly this would allow for better collaboration for article improvements, you may be able to more readily get the consensus you're seeking. Alternatively, as long as there continues to be no objection, you can just go ahead WP:BOLDLY with the work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A good amount of articles within the scope of WikiProject Computing are in need of improvements. By knowing the amounts of active members, efforts can be made with a better focus as we'll have an accurate overview of the amount of members and how much effort can be focused onto areas which need improvements. There's a good amount of articles which need massive rewrites and collaboration to get to GA status. (Some of which are of high importance and are rated C class or lower.)

In order to avoid mistakenly placing users to "formerly active members" section, a message/request would be sent to all users asking them to update their status. Some time is given afterwords for a chance to update user status before any changes are made to the list. (Perhaps four weeks or so.) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

LG G series articles badly need updating

The articles on the LG G series, e.g. LG G Pad 10.1, mostly seem not to have been updated since 2014, despite the level of detail and focus many of this project's editors devote to mobile device coverage. Consequently, the G Pad 10.1 article, for example, does not cover the G Pad II and G Pad X versions of the device. While, in theory, they could have their own articles, per WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SUMMARY there is insufficient material to warrant a split into multiple articles. We should just create separate sections for the later versions. Given the near-identical specs of the II and X, a single second infobox will suffice for both. Similar updates will also be needed at some other LG G series articles.

I thought of attempting this myself, but much of the detailed mobile device jargon is just gibberish to me, so unless I found really good specs on the devices and copy-pasted details I'm not sure I would get it right. Some of the "usual suspect" sources like GSMarena.com are missing information on some of these devices, e.g. the G Pad X 10.1 (it does have info on the G Pad II 10.1, however). I'm not certain it's not a WP:UGC site anyway; there may be more reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

They are not independently notable, and Wikipedia is not a product guide. So either merge them into the G series article, or else delete them. W Nowicki (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case here but, product reviews in independent reliable sources often render these topics independently notable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Gooligan

Hope someone will write an article on Gooligan (see also here etc). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if I have some spare time I'll write an article on Gooligan. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed expansion for the Huawei Honor article

Resolved

On behalf of Huawei, I’ve proposed an expanded Huawei Honor article. You can view my edit request on the article's talk page. I’m trying to find a neutral editor to copy over the proposed draft as appropriate. Is there a WikiProject Computing participant who is able to help? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Computing Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bronx Times

Would somebody from this WikiProject mind taking a look at The Bronx Times and possibly re-assessing it? The article was recently prodded, but was restored per WP:REFUND#The Bronx Times. Are there any notability guidelines in addition to WP:GNG and WP:NORG which might specifically apply to online newspapers such as this because the subject does not (at first glance) appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article has been tagged with maintenance templates since January 2014 so it may simply be a case of WP:NRV. Anyway, any suggestions for improvement or ideas about where to find better sourcing would be most appreciated. Feel free to add them to the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Gathering resources for new article

Hi everybody, first and foremost I have a paid COI to create an article on the industrial internet of things. I know this WikiProject isn't super active, but I was hoping someone here might be able to offer some insight into or assist me with gathering resources to create a new article on the IIoT. The current Internet of things article is a decent jumping-off point, but as it's a bit of a hodgepodge, I thought it'd be helpful to create a dedicated article on the industrial internet of things as it develops. Is anyone free to help me research and create a neutral article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are some other existing articles that touch this proposed topic: Industrial engineering, Industrial Ethernet, Industrial control system. Your first step will be to establish that this is a notable topic and not a neologism. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website - move discussion

Article is Fake news website.

Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake_news_website#Requested_move_7_December_2016. Sagecandor (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

New Wikileaking organization

Check out the new article on MormonWikiLeaks.

Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics related to computers is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Windows Me is more common than Windows ME, Microsoft and PCWorld use Me instead of ME

Microsoft uses the Windows Me spelling. This is the most common spelling and PC World also uses it. Google "windows me" on any search engine and you will see for yourself that Windows Me is more common than Windows ME. Should we use the "Me" capitalisation on our Windows Me article? Should we move the article to Windows Millennium Edition? Maria Kappatou (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)