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.
 

Improvements to TomTom article[edit]

Hello, I'm Murley, an employee of TomTom, here on behalf of the company to request changes to the article under the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest.

As a paid employee, I will never edit the article myself. 

I left a more detailed note on the TomTom Talk page, but in short, I'm hoping an editor can review my request to trim the article of excess technical and unsourced information. I'm happy to answer any questions or approach differently, if editors prefer. Thank you! Murley from TomTom (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC transwiki to WikiBooks[edit]

Per @Scottywong closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 I am setting up this section for initial discussion of the subproject to get the EBCDIC character encodings transwiki'd and stood up in a WikiBook. While I was in favour of keep the consensus of the AfD is it must be removed from WikiPedia and migratrated, with a WikiBook likely the favoured target. I am minded EBCDIC is but one of several character encodings that will likely go through this process, viewing Template:Character encodings gives perhaps some idea of the scope.

  • As hinted repeated by Barkeep49 but seemingly unnoticed by any Transwiki Supporter an easy win in the project is to get the supporting templates transwikied (via RFI) and then stood up as templates on WikiBooks.
  • Its also important to have a structure for the WikiBook. While EBCDIC is obvious my preference is to create a WikiBook for all character encodings, provisionally to be called B:Character Encodings. My thoughts on the basic structure are:

Book: Character Encodings
Intro/TOC pages
Howto pages
Tables/
EDBCIC/
Code page 875
Code page 876
....
DOS
....
MSWIN
....

  • Plan and glue it together.

I anticate some automaton either on wiki or off wiki for some of this and I anticipating using user Bigdelboy rather than by regular Djm-leighpark for some of this. Thankyou. Bigdelboy (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: The "easy win" of standing up the code page table support templates has proved more of a yomping slog but I believe they are now sort of stood up. As far as I can tell transwikied EBCDIC code pages dont seem to have history which is a sort of CWW issue. I've been pressing at getting these templates stood up ... my RL currently remains disrupted and I will be likely forced to try to recover than in the second half of the month; and it may look as though progress on this suddenly slows as I try to recover RL and while I am examining the code pages and developing automation; this might not be obvious in WikiPedia edits. Progress is now really recorded and discussed at B:Character Encodings. Thankyou. Bigdelboy (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming the names[edit]

@Gschizas, matthiaspaul: Observing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 I see different naming standards for the EBCDIC articles. I think I note in particular Gschizas created Code page 875 as EBCDIC 875 but it was renamed by matthiaspaul [1] (assuming I have it right. Can I have a reasoning for the difference standards and at least suggest a naming scheme for use on WikiBooks. Give me a story please. Thankyou.23:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

with no feedback I intend to use a consistent renaming scheme ... probably based on "EBCDIC xxx" adapted as necessary. I may choose to use "code page" as part of each page name depending on which side of bed I arise on the relevant day. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC) (Bigdelboy (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC))

Anyone willing to pick this up?[edit]

Following the good faith deletion of the code pages by the closer (see their talk page for details) I am abandoning work on this project unless a last stand DRV I may raise succeeds in allowing the pages to remain undeleted for longer. All other code pages are now eligible for deletion (they were before but it might have been inapropriate to raise it while this project was active) and may be bundle nominated for deletion, possibly my Bigdelboy account. If anyone else wishes to take this up feel free to contact me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thanks for your efforts. The content has been deleted. Like may things Wikipedia, things that seem like they should be easy enough turn out to be daunting. I see the following possible ways forward:
  1. Work to get the deletion discussion reopened. I specifically question Scottywong's conclusion that the discussion demonstrated a strong consensus that the material does not belong on Wikipedia. I count 9 keep votes and 10 other votes. Of the others, only 3 are clean delete opinions, the others were assuming to one degree or another that the material would be transwikified.
  2. Find some other place online that this information already exists and add clear external links to Code page and friends. The existing external links (many patchy Wayback links) do not appear to be particularly helpful.
  3. Let it go. This stuff is of limited current value and many Wikipedians are bent on curating the encyclopedia to remove content like this they see as cruft. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments: I have chosen to leave this down for a bit as it is not the good RL time for me to raise this. In fact September so far has seen me simply discussion/watchlist react on WP; though I have initiated a couple of drafts from fallout of same; mainly intending to create a simple stub into mainspace and leave it at that. I still think its likely I'm raising a DRV at some point within the next 2 to 8 weeks; but I've other stuff I think I'm best doing first. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(Extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering#Missing section or article: (extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective.

Mentioning it here since it involves things like LAN and PC cabling information (and where to put it).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Aspose.BarCode[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if someone(s) could look at Draft:Aspose.BarCode and give the article editor some feedback (@Alexandr.gavriluk:). I declined it because of neutrality but that seems to have been dealt with. Some of the feedback, however, may have been incorrect since I looked at other articles in this topic area and saw that there were indeed example sections of code - something I thought shouldn't be in the article. This could really benefit from someone more familiar with computing and code articles taking a look, especially when it comes to notability since I don't really have a lot of experience in this area. I would definitely appreciate it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 10:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added a diagram and description of the AfC process. While ReaderofthePack has been focused on tone and other content issues, notability is typically the primary focus for AfC reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


Cleanup of List of filename extensions[edit]

I'm proposing the List of filename extensions articles be cleaned up aggressively. Please see Talk:List of filename extensions#Cleanup and Criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A new-ish computer-graphics sense of "mura"[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mura#Another meaning. We seem to be missing an article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusing overlap between VLSI Project and Mead & Conway revolution[edit]

I just made some fairly feeble efforts to make these two pages aware of each other:

The VLSI Project, as well as Mead's and Conway's contributions to VLSI design and synthesis was a pretty big deal in the history of computer science.

The VLSI Project page, in particular, now includes a citation, which I just added moments ago, to a 300 page book from the National Academies Press (1999) which details much of the whole saga.

With all this material, Wikipedia's account of this important history chapter could be so much better than it now is. But I'm pretty ignorant in this area, being far more on the software/embedded side of the fence, and it's too much synthesis for me to bite off, so I can only drop a note here that there's a large margin for improvement in these overlapping articles. — MaxEnt 02:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to create Category:Memory-unsafe programming languages and Category:Memory-safe programming languages[edit]

Does anyone disagree?--Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I object. Memory safety is [A] not a defining characteristic of a computer language, [B] something that can and does happen in hardware instead of software, and [C] is heavily dependent upon the operating system and CPU.
not a defining characteristic of a computer language: The first three refs in our Memory safety article talk about writing memory-sace C code or using a compiler or other tool that adds memory-safety to C. On the other hand, any supposedly "memory safe" program that is running at the highest privilege level (on processors and OSs that support privilege levels) and has an inline assembler can clobber any memory location.
Something that can and does happen in hardware in many cases Memory protection prevents the most "memory unsafe" code from screwing up anything but itself, and even the most "memory safe" language has the ability to create programs that crash.
Heavily dependent upon the operating system and CPU: Give me a version of any supposedly "memory safe" language ported to run on MS-DOS on a 8088, and I will write you a program that can corrupt any part of memory. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you are getting confused with hardware memory protection. What I mean is programming language memory protection. Please, see Memory safety. For example, with Java (programming language) you cannot have buffer overflows, but with C (programming language) you can using the same computer and operating system for both.--Jcarlosmartins (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well the categories were created, but with nothing in them. So they could be deleted after a week if unused, or CFD'd if unwise to have. In the meantime I restored the categories as they are clearly intended to be kept and are not test pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have pages called Memory-safe programming or Memory-unsafe programming to talk about issues and implementations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Re: "For example, with Java (programming language) you cannot have buffer overflows, but with C (programming language) you can using the same computer and operating system for both" that's not true. You are describing an aspect of the compiler, not the language. A C compiler can be written that cannot have buffer overflows, but the performance would suck. A Java implementation can in theory have buffer overflows, but why would anyone create such a thing? It does happen by accident, though, and when discovered requires a fix. See
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the idea makes sense. The vulnerabilities you cite are implementation bugs: the Java language specification asserts that bounds checks are done and gives an informal semantics for them [2]. We can talk of the language having memory safety properties that the implementation fails to satisfy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

An issue with the proposed categorisation is that "memory safety" is not a simple dichotomy, but a family of safety properties with sometimes unclear applicability. For an example, is Ada memory safe? It allows pointers to be used after they are freed, so apparently not, but it goes out of its way to make it possible to handle such situations in a safe way; Java's memory safety guarantees owe as much to Ada as they do to Lisp-like languages. Is Haskell memory safe? One of the memory safety issues listed at the article page is heap exhaustion, and Haskell does not have a good story to tell here.

I think this indicates at least that a list would serve better than categories: it allows us to group together languages that share similar storage models and it makes it possible to attach qualifications and sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know about Per-user unitary rate control?[edit]

This MIMO-related article is too technical/niche for me to make heads or tails of, but it needs some cleanup help if anyone here is familiar with the subject. (Also posting this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Telecommunications). ~EdGl! 04:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Zero trust networks[edit]

Hello computing gurus. If anyone is familiar with Zero Trust Networks, I think the article could use some love. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Internet Society History[edit]

Hi WikiProject Computing editors: I am looking for editors interested in computing to review a request at Talk:Internet Society. I proposed updates to the article's History section. The draft removes content that is either unsourced or relies solely on primary sources; adds sourcing where possible; eliminates some redundancy; and adds new content. I work at the Internet Society, so I have a conflict of interest that I've previously disclosed. Can anyone help? Thank you. Neville at Internet Society (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of InnerSloth for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article InnerSloth 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/InnerSloth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Right cite (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Internet" vs. "internet"[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Internet#Request for comment: should "internet" be capitalized as a proper noun?
There's some debate there about the difference between "the Internet" and "an internet", about what a proper name is, and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT#NEWS policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at C18 (C standard revision)[edit]

Watchers of this page may be interested in the move discussion at Talk:C18_(C_standard_revision)#Requested_move_26_October_2020, regarding whether the WP:COMMONNAME of the current C standard revision is C17 or C18. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Rosetta@home[edit]

I have nominated Rosetta@home for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)