Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:COMP)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.


--John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fibre Channel, Draft:Fibre Channel Ports, etc.[edit]

I reviewed Draft:Fibre Channel Ports at Articles for Creation and declined it as reading too much like a list for a catalog rather than an encyclopedic draft, and noted that it had no references and did not explain how fibre channel ports are used. User:Jcran1234 then posted to my talk page:

Hi, I am looking for guidance on how to continue. I started this work by addressing the issue that the port types in the Fibre Channel article ( had no citations which required finding a reliable source (the Fibre Channel standards) and then updating the definitions to that reliable source. I then thought that it might be better to put that list in a separate article and referencing it in the Fibre Channel article. If this is not realistic or proper, then I will update update the list in the Fibre Channel article with this updated information. Thoughts? For what it is worth, I am also planning to update the Fibre Channel Zoning article to use information from the IETF MIB for Zoning and the Fibre Channel standards (addressing the issue to cite to reliable sources and filling in gaps of missing information).

It looks to me as if this list of types of channel ports should be added to the existing article. The filling in of gaps in existing articles is also always appreciated. (The improvement of existing articles is no harder and sometimes less hard than the creation of new articles and is also important to Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Such content belongs to the already existing Fibre Channel article, there would be no reasons to split such information into a separate article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It appears the information is already present at Fibre_Channel#Ports. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Image scaling[edit]

The image scaling article was a bloated mess, mostly devoted to comparison galleries of images produced by a seemingly endless list of various fairly trivial algorithms. I've now de-merged the pixel art stuff into its own article, but too much of this article is still devoted to blow-by-blow comparisons of individual algorithms with inline images that takes up a lot of space to say very little. There is a good article to be written on image scaling, which is a subject with surprisingly deep ramifications into machine vision and the psychophysics of vision, but this isn't it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A Wikiversity page or WikiBooks book could be built from the comparisons -- (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

High Performance Computing Software Development Tools[edit]

I have created this wiki page for sharing information on HPC tools. It has passed initial edit reviews but they (Robert McClenon suggested I contact this group for additional review. Can please have a look and if it is acceptable, please publish. Thank you. Smk-slab (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see some problems with this article:
  • The tone is unencyclopedic in several places (the heading "Purpose of this page", "The following table was created based on the tools used within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) on its HPC systems. Not every tools is available on every DOE HPC system. Additions, deletions, and corrections are encouraged.")
  • The taxonomy used in the article seems to be mostly an original invention instead of based on existing sources.
  • The real meat of the article seems to be the section Table of HPC Tools and the rest just reads like unnecessarily verbose padding.
The only way I would see this being accepted as an article is to make it into a list:
  • Rename it to List of high-performance computing software and make it clear this is a spin-out of Supercomputer#Software tools and message passing.
  • Cut down on the fluff, unencyclopedic language, and make clear that the taxonomy is just a way to organize this particular list instead of some "novel contribution" that needs to be explained in-depth.
  • On Wikipedia, lists of software should usually be comprised of software that already has an article on its own. Currently all the links are external links. Some of those can be changed to internal links. Those than cannot should either also have an article created about them (if they are very notable), be supported by some sources that explain their importance to the HPC field, or be trimmed from the list.
Ruud 19:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide your very valid comments. I guess my head was stuck on the collaborative nature of wiki's and not enough on the encyclopedic intent of the site. I think the article can't be fixed. I will figure out how to delete the draft. --Smk-slab (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Mysterious orphan article[edit]

Hello! While going through orphan articles I stumbled upon Agent network topology, which I can make no sense of. Any chance someone can take a look, clarify the article, or maybe even de-orphan it (you'll be my hero if you can do the latter!). Thanks a bunch!! Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I couldn't make head or tail out of it either. But I made very disturbing discovery. I was browsing this:

Classification of Intelligent Agent Network Topologies and a New Topological Description Language for Agent Networks (PDF). IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. 228/2007. Springer Boston. 2007. pp. 21–31. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-44641-7. ISBN 978-0-387-44639-4. 

When I encountered the following abstract that highly resembles the article lead. I have highlighted the differences:

Topological theory of intelligent agent networks provides crucial information about the structure of agent distribution over a network. Agent network topologies not only take agent distribution into consideration but also consider agent mobility and intelligence in a network.

Current research in the agent network topology area adopts topological theory from the distributed system and computing network fields without considering mobility and intelligence aspects. Moreover, current agent network topology theory is not systematic and relies on graph-based methodology, which is inefficient in describing large-scale agent networks. In this paper, we systematically classify the agent network topologies and propose a new description language called Topological Description Language for Agent networks (TDLA), which incorporates the mobility and intelligence characteristics in an agent network.
Browsing the first revision, I clearly see that this whole article is an instance of copyright violation.
—Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry I missed that. Thanks for your help!! Ajpolino (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


Opinions needed about this draft at AFC please. If you do not wish to do a complete AFC review please post your comments to the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Appears to have been accepted into mainspace by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. Could use some improvements and additional independent sources to establish a stronger notability case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Light, new web browser article[edit]

Hiya, I just created Light (web browser), it's still short and stubbish and I'm not sure how to add it to this project. Thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) (ETA: I've now figured out that you don't need permission to add those templates to article talk pages. Yay! Xmoogle (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

I removed some redundancy. {{WikiProject Free Software}} and {{WikiProject Software}} automatically include this project. I also removed {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}} and {{WikiProject Linux}} because the subject is not closely associated with those topics. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer[edit]

I just noticed Category:Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer ; with a grabbag of contents. Isn't this just pipelining/superpipelining? The platforms categorized are not related to each other. -- (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Stacked layout for infoboxes[edit]

Hello everyone

Those who watch Internet Explorer, Firefox and Google Chrome articles may have noticed that I have implemented a new stacked layout for version information in {{Infobox web browser}}. This occurred on 31 May 2016 and I haven't had any complaint yet.

I intend to implement this in {{Infobox software}} eventually, so if anyone has any feedback, now would be a good time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Guy Harris: This might actually interest you, because it can be implemented in {{Infobox OS}} too. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Virtual machine image[edit]

Please add information to this article and edit it as you can. Thank you. --2601:285:101:A67A:88DB:4009:605E:A8E9 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just testing the temperature of this environment[edit]

After reading Base64, the first two lines under the frame, and after also clicking on the link MIME content transfer encoding therein, and reading the first line under the heading and the word 'format', presented to me then, I wonder, am I justified in concluding that the consensus has been that the meaning of the technical term Base64, having become obsolete by the replacement of RFC 1341 by RFC 2045, could also be replaced? That the term was vacant for carrying a new meaning? Please DO correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly hope you will.

If we recycle the term in this way, future readers are going to have a hell of a time disambiguating the two. And that is not only going to confound future historians, but every individual of every new generation. Remember that the ontogenesis repeats the filogenesis, and that that goes on after leaving the womb: the newborn human still has to conquer language, etcetera. In school we relive the previous centuries with a bird's eye view.

That is not recycling, that is cannibalism of the worst kind (Chronos'). For the new meaning, definitely a new term should have been coined. – (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC notice[edit]

Hello :)

An RFC about the {{Infobox software}} is open at Template talk:Infobox software § Should we add a "source code repository" field to the infobox? Participants are welcome.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Living Computer Museum[edit]

I've seen that other museums have been tagged with the project box so I have added it to the Talk page of the Living Computer Museum. Is there a way to get a reassessment on the article as a whole? I have done extensive edits this summer that I believe to bring it above stub class. I currently work for the museum and do not want to be biased and asses the article. Thanks! MBlairMartin (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)