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.

New WikiProject[edit]

Hey there! I have made a new WikiProject proposal that focuses on the connected home! If you are interested of learning more about the project, joining or discussion you can visit the project page

Daylen (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Deep Web"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Deep Web is under discussion, see talk:Dark Web -- (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with merge[edit]

Hello! I work at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, and I'm trying to merge Prefetch buffer to per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prefetch buffer. However, I'm having trouble since I don't know much about the topic and want to avoid giving undue weight to the topic of prefetch buffers. Would it be appropriate to merge the entire contents of the article, as a new section, or should I keep only a sentence or two? --Cerebellum (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cerebellum
My advice is: Take it easy. Just read both, copy the contents of Prefetch buffer into dynamic random access memory under a new level 2 section (== ==) and edit the contents so that they look like an integral part of the article. As for the rest, editors watching that article will take care of it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Dynamic random-access memory seems like an inappropriate target for a merge to me. Synchronous dynamic random-access memory might make a little more sense, but that whole AfD seems to have received too little attention, so I would take its outcome with a grain of salt. Merging two articles by doing a copy-and-paste job and without understanding the contents of either is nearly always a bad idea, though. —Ruud 16:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! AFAIK, the Prefetch buffer article is slightly skewed. Please have a look at the functional diagram of DDR2 (figure 1 in the PDF, on page 2), and you'll see that there are no additional buffers that would be called "prefetch buffers". There are I/O registers, of course, but they are part of the usual DRAM design that involves no data prefetching. The article's description of data prefetching either describes a DRAM design that isn't mainstream, or seems to be confused with a feature of memory controllers that enables data prefetching from DRAM into L1 and L2 CPU caches as an attempt toward performance improvements by exploiting spatial locality of data, and, consequently, the row buffer locality that hinges on already opened rows; please see a Xeon Phi description and a DRAM controller design for more details. The only clear mentioning of a prefetch register I've found is this one, but the section 55.6 of the book is rather terse and quite confusing in explaining the illustrations. (To make it worse, the book has been scanned upside-down. Go figure. :)
With all that in mind, IMHO the article shouldn't have been called "Prefect buffer" in the first place; instead, "DDR SDRAM prefetch architecture" would have been much more appropriate. We might want to merge the content into our Double data rate article, which already has the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section that deals with the internal and external clock frequencies, and the description of prefetch architecture should fit there very well. Another option, which might be even better, would be to merge the content into our Synchronous dynamic random-access memory article, and to provide a brief summary in the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section. At the same time, merged content should be edited to match the description of DDR SDRAM prefetch architecture, as that's what we have references for.
Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, if you look at the first versions of the article the author is describing the kn-prefetch architecture and later edits seems to have made the article a bit more confused. If we want to describe this, then Synchronous dynamic random-access memory would be the right place, as it already covers all the other technical intricacies of SDRAM. The title "Prefetch buffer" just seems to be a misnomer, so I don't think we even want to keep this as a redirect. But what to do with the contents? Is there anything worth salvaging, or should it just be deleted, so we can start over? —Ruud 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Prefetch buffer shouldn't be kept as a redirect once the merger is complete. I'd say that about 20 to 25% of the content is salvageable, so IMHO it would be better not to start from a blank canvas. Agreed about the Synchronous dynamic random-access memory article as the destination, but we should also add a brief summary to the Double data rate § Relation of bandwidth and frequency section – that would round it up nicely. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of "the cloud" as buzzword[edit]

Per WP:NPOV, articles must be neutrally written. In my opinion, this includes that we should not use particular buzzwords within them. Although cloud computing is a notable concept, it, in most cases, refers simply to online storage services that use such platforms, or the storage of synchronized data on remote servers.

I think we should look at how all our computing-related articles use terminology referencing "the cloud" and modify them approriately. For instance, a few articles refer to storing information "in the cloud"; this is a buzzword and should be replaced by a less ambiguous term such as "on a remote server". ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You've certainly spotted a problem. It is certainly as bad as "consumerization", especially when used carelessly. A bad example (or a good example for our purpose) is Comparison of file synchronization software. (Permanent link) It says "online cloud storage"; this means a cloud storage that is on the Internet. (This rarely happens.) But wait! That's not what the field means. It means what the vendor provides an associated file hosting service as well. So, "online storage" would have sufficed. Another problem is with "Sync to cloud". Again, the same thing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of NewsBank for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewsBank is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBank 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Computer program[edit]

Are "computer program" and "app" synonymous? Have your say at Talk:Computer program. —Ruud 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: ping! —Ruud 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I've commented over there in the Talk:Computer program § Are Computer Program and App synonyms? (redux) discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)