Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.

Articles with links to DAB pages[edit]

I have collected several pages which contain {{disambiguation needed}} tags on computing-related topics which might be resolvable with expert attention. They range between the very technical and the very vague (in some cases, it seems quite possible that the editor who made the link didn't know what they were talking about). To find the problem, search for 'disam' in read view or for '{{d' in edit view. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article, and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk)

Request an infobox for computer vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed and Shellshock[edit]

I've been reading through several of these vulnerability articles and noticed there doesn't seem to be an infobox template for them. I like infoboxes because they summarise a page in one place and was wondering if one would be suitable for those pages.

Here's my proof of concept example:

{{Infobox vulnerability | name = | logo = | logo caption = | logo size = | screenshot = | screenshot size = | screenshot alt = | caption = | [[CVE identifiers]] = | date discovered = | discoverer = | affected hardware = | affected software = | used by = | date patched = | website = }}

Inferno986return (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems necessary. There are a lot of these (see Category:Computer security exploits). ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I've never introduced an infobox template to Wikipedia before. Is there a formal process to do this? Or is it okay to jump-in and revise as we go along? Inferno986return (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that I have started a proof-of-concept infobox for Heartbleed using the generic {{Infobox}} template in my sandbox. Please give feedback and let me know what you think. :-) Inferno986return (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, jumping in is how you do it around here. The results look good to to me. We don't want to use {{Infobox}} directly. What we need to do is define a new template based on {{Infobox}}. {{Infobox Audio over Ethernet technology}} is an example I'm familiar with. I'm not experienced creating such templates but, based on what you've started, I'm willing to jump in and give it a try when I get a chance. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng and Inferno986return: I've made a template at User:BrandonXLF/C and a doc at User:BrandonXLF/C/doc. Please edit it and let me know when you're going to move it. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: Looks lovely and a solid step towards a working solution. Inferno986return (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson#Requested_move_13_December_2018[edit]

SMirC-thumbsup.svg Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson#Requested_move_13_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 08:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello, I'm looking for feedback on my first article. It's based on a NoSQL Database. Can somebody take a look at it and see if I need to do anything else with it? Thank you, IllegalThoughts (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You need third party independent reliable sources (eg. review/s in published/online magazine with regular staff) to establish notability of the article subject. Sources you use are not independent on the article subject (= not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes). The article - as it stands now - would not survive an AfD. Pavlor (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Template for file/directory trees?[edit]

Articles for rivers have available some templating for schematically displaying their course and features: see for example, in the "course" section of River Till, Lincolnshire. Is there something similar for displaying typical file/directory trees, commonly used in UNIX/Linux systems? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: Is there any theoretical example on your mind? Templates for rivers and railways show stations and various intersections. Can we show for the file system something besides hierarchy? Very different from something like that Help:Family trees, mw:Extension:Graph/Demo/CartesianTree? --Sunpriat (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sunpriat: Thanks for your reply. I was recently doing the Newcastle Connection article, using this paper as a reference. Its second section, "UNIX United" on its page 2 (the PDF's page 6) has a typical directory tree. I was wanting to produce something like that. If there is a recommended template here on WP for this sort of thing, I would certainly investigate it. (If there isn't such a recommended template, I'm slightly surprised!). Otherwise the Help:Family trees "Ahnentafel" looks promising (I don't think the horizontal vs. vertical issue is too important). Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Feline Hymnic: Clade template looks simple special:diff/876461777. In articles about Tree structure almost always hand-made pictures. --Sunpriat (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sunpriat: In your demo, you used both the {{cladogram}} template and the {{Tree list}} template. It seems to me that the {{Tree list}} template is exactly what @Feline Hymnic: is looking for! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: Template:Tree list is close to the Tree (command)#Example, but not quite it output (as it will show the very first node we do not know), which can be confusing(or not?) by the similarity. The output of the tree command could be shown according to the MOS:COMPUTING. Here it turns that we copy/redraw the image from pdf. --Sunpriat (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Sunpriat: @Feline Hymnic: The directory structure diagram shown in Feline's example document resembles a binary tree more than a traditional directory tree structure. (Most directories are more varied than simple binary trees.) So, whereas Feline's document lists a structure as:

         / \
        /   \
       /     \
unix1 .       . unix2
     / \     / \
    /   \   /   \
     usr .   usr .
        / \     / \
       /   \   /   \
brian .       brian .
     / \           / \
    /   \         /   \
   /     \       /     \
  a       b  quicksort  \

modern texts would be much more likely to list this structure as:

  • .
    • unix1
      • usr
        • brian
          • a
          • b
    • unix2
      • usr
        • brian
          • quicksort
          • b
          • c
    • unix3
      • usr
        • brian
          • a
          • b
          • c
        • john
          • a
          • b
          • c
        • jane
          • d
          • e
          • f

(Note here that I have added more nodes, with three subnodes each, to show the limitations of the source document's paradigm.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: That's useful. Thanks! The referenced paper, using diagonal lines for its figures, is old, and used the conventions of its early 1980s period. I don't think we need necessarily to copy that formatting. Probably more important is conveying the underlying information in a way that is readily understood in today's conventions. Switching to the underlying principle: is there something in MOS:COMPUTING that says something like "to illustrate parts of a UNIX/Linux directory tree endeavour to use 'Template:tree list'" or similar? If not, should there be? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Mootaz Elnozahy In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

{{PROD}}-ded, notability for this IEEE fellow might be given, but no WP:42 sources is not good enough. – (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved: by RebeccaGreen, thanks. – (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software to Wikipedia:WikiProject Free and Open-Source Software[edit]

There is currently a requested move from Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software to Wikipedia:WikiProject Free and Open-Source Software. If you are interested, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software § Requested move 23 December 2018. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft: GridDB[edit]

Hello, I'm looking for feedback on my first article -- it's been recently updated to include a more diverse citation base. It's based on a NoSQL Database. Can somebody take a look at it and see if I need to do anything else with it? Thank you, IllegalThoughts (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Press releases certainly aren´t reliable sources (for Wikipedia). Too weak to establish notability, this article would not survive an AfD. Pavlor (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Human Interaction Proof[edit]

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this new article and assssing it. It looks like a first attempt at writing an article by a new user. Subject matter seems quite technical, and it reads more like an academic paper than a Wikipedia article. I tried to do some basic formatting cleanup, but perhaps someone here is familiair with the subject matter and can help with the phrasing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@SelimLakhdar: – I did a move and some case fixing. Not a bad first article for someone not quite expert in English, I'd say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Optical interconnect[edit]

There's a discussion relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Optical interconnect#This article's topic and mergers. 99Electrons (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Binary Wavelet Packet Tree[edit]

Can someone please review this draft? Is it within the scope of this project, or the Engineering project? It is beyond my not-so-recent technical knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, either here or WP:WPCS which is closely affiliated with this project. Looks like coverage of Wavelet topics is not well organized. The draft describes an improvement on Wavelet Tree. The question is whether the improvement is notable enough to require a separate article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PCVC Speech Dataset[edit]

It would be great if interested editors could comment on the AfD discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Closed with adequate discussion but without consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT: GridDB[edit]

Can somebody let me know if my draft for GridDB NoSQL Database is ready for full publication?

Thanks, IllegalThoughts (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Not better. Only new source (excluding corporate related partners - eg. that Toshiba one) is, which seems to be advertising driven content (at least about page of this website hints about that). There is no traceable editorial oversight, so no RS anyway. Pavlor (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. I think I finally understand the hang up. If I remove all of the claims that aren't directly verifiable (such as features) and strip to just history, would that be sufficient with the current crop of sources? Thanks again IllegalThoughts (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No, issue is not in unsourced parts. Main problem is lack of good quality sources: sources you use are either not idependent on the article subject, user generated, or both. Wikipedia has concepts of notability (see WP:N) and of reliable sources (see WP:RS). In short, review in published/online magazine with editorial staff is a reliable source; adverts, company newsletters, blogs or pages with unclear editorial oversight aren´t reliable sources. There is also need for "significant coverage" of the article subject in reliable sources, but this is really a subjective criterion (highly depends on Wikipedia editor and topic). As an example, take the sources in my first article Olivetti M20 (an ultra-obscure computer from the early 1980s): "Byte" and "Bits and Bytes" reviews are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject, "InfoWorld" and "Popular Science" news are reliable sources which are rather short (so in most cases not that significant coverage), company manuals aren´t reliable sources (useable - in some cases - for verifitability, but don´t establish notability), webpage of Reserve Bank of New Zealand is (probably) reliable source for historical exchange rate, but certainly not for general topic of the article (so no notability). Sure, for modern topic, you would rather use online sources: eg. review on ArsTechnica may be a good RS, "tabloid" articles on The Register may be tenable as RS, short news on are RS (but mostly no significant coverage). You must judge reliability of any source and ask questions like: Is there editorial oversight over published content (error corrections, fact checking)? Is there some conflict of interest (eg. author of the source is also author of the software in question)? Is the source respected among other reliable sources? How broad is target audience of the source (village newspaper vs national newspaper)? etc. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

This article seems to be lacking sources. This page contains good information on the topic, and Google made the image a part of their "featured snippet" result for "pixel pitch defined" keyphrase, alongside the link to this article.

Might I suggest using some information from this article and having it listed as an external link? The infographic would also make an excellent featured image for the article.

Thanks, Ryan Meighan --RyanMeighan (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is DUALLy notable?[edit]

Is there anyone who'd be willing to have a look at DUALLy and see if it's notable? There are some sources out there, but that's not in my area and I can't quite make heads or tails of them. – Uanfala (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Softpedia ( and The Hacker News ( at the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of Softpedia ( and The Hacker News (, not to be confused with Hacker News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Softpedia ( and The Hacker News ( for UGNazi. — Newslinger talk 12:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

CPU Sockets and Memory support[edit]

Hello. There are many articles about CPU Socket that completely lack info about the supported memory types. Here are some of the Intel Sockets:

Can someone please help adding that info?

--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of JAXenter (, and at the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of JAXenter (, and at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § JAXenter (, and for Draft:Eclipse Theia. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Power Architecture on Wikipedia[edit]

Power Architecture is a marketing term that was promoted by IBM and members during the mid- and late-2000s. It is an umbrella term that was used to describe anything that had some relation to the POWER, PowerPC, or Power ISA architectures. It has been out of use by IBM et al. since IBM founded the OpenPOWER Foundation and became defunct sometime during the early 2010s.

Wikipedia has followed IBM et al.'s usage conventions of this term, and has applied it liberally throughout the encyclopedia, which has resulted in:

There are two problems with this term. Firstly, it's technobabble. It sounds like as if it's a well-defined technical concept, but it isn't. Secondly, it has a large potential to confuse. "Architecture" is an too-overloaded term in ordinary English and in computing. In computing, it could refer to a multitude of different things depending on the context. For example, in the context of hardware, "architecture" could refer to the architecture of a computer system, the architecture of a computer subsystem (processor, memory, I/O, etc.), or the abstract model of a computer (also called computer architecture or instruction set architecture).

My concern is what do readers think of when they encounter "Power Architecture"? Besides the ordinary uses of "Power" in English, IBM has used "Power" or "POWER" in a number of different contexts. Originally, it was an instruction set architecture (IBM POWER instruction set architecture). Then it was a series of processors IBM POWER microprocessors. Most recently, there's a family of computers called IBM Power Systems. Then there are nouns that include "Power" as a part, such as PowerPC. While Wikipedia can't do much about the names of these things, since it must call something by its name, it can omit "Power Architecture" when it isn't relevant to the article, doesn't explain or clarify anything in the article, or doesn't improve the article.

To demonstrate that this is not theoretical, consider the Power Architecture article. Its purpose is to explain what the Power Architecture is, yet it's confused. The article provides a glossary to define the various terms that could be confused with each other, and then proceeds to make two glaring self-contradictions:

  • It has a large section about the Power ISA, which the article earlier defined as something that is distinct from the Power Architecture (the former is a computer architecture, the latter is a trademarked umbrella term that may refer to things with a relatation to the former).
  • It concludes with a long confused list of things that "implement" the Power Architecture, which is a misuse of "implement", and a misunderstanding of the Power Architecture. If Power Architecture is an umbrella term for various related things, then it cannot be something that can be implemented—it's not a specification.

As another example, consider Template:Power Architecture. The way it is structured is confused. Power Architecture isn't a standard which is "made" by various manufacturers. The standards are the POWER, PowerPC, and Power ISA architectures. Yet there is no consistency in the way that template is organized. That cannot be conducive to easy navigation.

The importance of this term is also overstated on Wikipedia. Category:Power Architecture duly follows Power Architecture's definition; every article that meets the definition is categorized in that category. However, the majority of the articles are about topics that predate the introduction of Power Architecture. Given the nature of computing, the majority of the sources for these articles would likely predate the introduction of Power Architecture as well. Consequently, most, if not all, sources that these articles cite, would not support the claim that these are Power Architecture topics. To say that they are Power Architecture topic places undue weight on the marketing from IBM et al.

Because Power Architecture is a vague, ill-defined marketing term and has a large potential to confuse, what is its encyclopedic usefulness? I would argue it has none. It's not a definition that explains and clarifies, and it doesn't group topics together better than the existing schemes that are founded on technical criteria. It exists on Wikipedia because it does elsewhere; and its conventions are followed because Wikipedia can, not because Wikipedia should.

The organization of the topics that fall under the Power Architecture umbrella should be determined by what makes good sense for an encyclopedia. To this end, I think:

  • The Power ISA content in Power Architecture should be split out into Power ISA.
  • The content in Power Architecture about the term should be merged into It is sufficient to explain that Power Architecture is a marketing term in the article about the organization which spawned it.
  • Every mention of "Power Architecture" in contexts other than as a marketing term should be removed from Wikipedia. There's no need to insert this term into every topic that Power Architecture deems falls under its umbrella. Where this term has been used mistakenly instead of the correct term, the mistake should be corrected. For example, if an article about a processor describes it as a Power Architecture processor, then the actual architecture the processor implements should be mentioned instead.
  • Category:Power Architecture should be deleted. There's no need to categorize articles under it just because IBM et al. say their topics retroactively fall under the Power Architecture umbrella.

99Electrons (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of this sounds reasonable to me. The only standard other than the Power ISA that I see mentioned on Power Architecture is the Power Architecture Platform Reference; other standards can probably have their own pages as well. appears to be dead; is that a further sign that "Power Architecture", as a concept, is also dead? The OpenPOWER Foundation page (which I just fixed to use https: for all links, as that site seems to reject Boring Old No-TLS HTTP) says that " is still the governing body around the Power Architecture instruction set" - is that now out of date?
And is there anything in the PowerPC ISA that isn't in the Power ISA? If not, the two ISAs should perhaps be discussed on the same page - perhaps have a single page for the ISA, have "PowerPC ISA" redirect to it, and combine ISA information from PowerPC and Power Architecture on that page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Curses to IBMs terrible naming strategies. And I agree with Guy Harris.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Harris: I'm almost certain "Power Architecture" as a brand is dead. I can't find any non-incidental or legacy use of it on IBM's website (which seems to use the OpenPOWER brand instead). It's the same for the OpenPOWER Foundation. I can't find any current use of Power Architecture using that website's search function or with Google.
I think merging the PowerPC article and Power ISA content from Power Architecture is a better solution than having a separate article for the Power ISA. The latter is clearly an outgrowth of the former: The manual for Power ISA 2.07B ([1]) says in the preface that Power ISA 2.03 was created in 2006 by combining PowerPC 2.02 with PowerPC Book E, which was then not a core part of the architecture. Note that in Power ISA 3.0 B, all of the embedded features introduced in 2.03 were removed (as documented in the preface of [2]). I personally don't think this is relevant to the question of whether PowerPC and Power ISA can be covered in the same article, as 3.0 B is still a development of something that began with PowerPC. 99Electrons (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I forgot to mention this in my OP, but there's a few discussions concerning "Power Architecture" and "Power ISA" in category names that has some relevance to this discussion:

99Electrons (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that most of this confusion is due to IBM's inconsistent use and definition of what's what. I've tried my best to unclutter it, but hell, it's not easy. I cant be as invested in Wikipedia as I've been in the past, so I gladly pass on the enthusiasm to whomever what to keep on pushing. Most suggestion seems reasonable. You have my blessing going forward. -- Henriok (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree The phrase "Power Architecture" is really dumb and ambiguous, to distinguish its usage for several different things, there is need to use correct phrase. Editor-1 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot to do auto-assessment (among other tasks) and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta[edit]

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of (formerly Linux Weekly News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § for Draft:NumWorks. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 02:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD on Harald Tveit Alvestrand[edit]

Deletion of the article on Harald Tveit Alvestrand has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand. You are invited to join the discussion. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox OS component[edit]

Template:Infobox OS component has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox software. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.[edit]

Hello WikiProject Computing members,

Sad mac.png

WikiProject Apple Inc. has halted and needs editors to restart it. If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch. Post a message there, or join the new IRC channel on named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word,

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Apple TV[edit]

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)