Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Computing page.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Project-class)|
|WikiProject Computing was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 12 June 2013. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
- 1 Help with merge
- 2 Use of "the cloud" as buzzword
- 3 Computer program
- 4 Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Computing and Engineering
- 5 Shelving buffer & Re-order buffer
- 6 "Cyberweapon"
- 7 Category:UML Partners
- 8 Article: User provisioning software
- 9 Discussion about software articles, COI, sourcing, level of detail
- 10 Are listings of keyboard shortcuts encyclopedic information?
- 11 Frozen or duplicate headers for the large tables? Or allow column sorting?
- 12 Line-delimited JSON
Help with merge
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)
- OK, thank you all for the input! Sorry for the delay but I just now performed the merge, with Synchronous dynamic random-access memory as the target. I did not add anything to double data rate because I was not sure how to summarize the content. Also, even if prefetch buffer is not a good redirect, we have to keep it for attribution purposes. Please take a look at the SDRAM article and if things are now hopelessly confused feel free to revert so I can try again. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Use of "the cloud" as buzzword
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".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.
- There's more to cloud storage than a server. Online storage is a disambiguation page so not a good target. Perhaps there's a less buzzarific term we could be using but what's described in the Cloud storage article is the best information we have on generalized remote storage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Kvng. I was proposing online file storage article, using [[online file storage|online storage]] syntax because "file" is implied by the context. I though I am being obvious because the link redirects to file hosting service which I linked. I sometimes forget that not everyone has Popups enabled. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Talk:Computer program § Are Computer Program and App synonyms? (redux) discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) over there in the
Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Computing and Engineering
- Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:COMPUTING and WP:ENGINEERING.
- I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Computing and Engineering, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Engineering and technology.
- I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
- Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.
Shelving buffer & Re-order buffer
Shelving buffer & Re-order buffer seem to be talking about basically the same thing, using terminology from different eras or institutions. Perhaps it would be good to merge them into a single article that explains how one relates to the other. Another possibility is that I have misunderstood, in which case it would be good to clarify the meaning of each article, to help out the reader as ignorant as I.--Wcoole (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have added banners. Please continue discussion at Talk:Re-order_buffer#Shelving_buffer. ~Kvng (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:UML Partners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Article: User provisioning software
As the article is stated as within the scope of this project and even marked as Mid-importance I also ask my question in here too. I'm just wondering, I may not know much about user provisioning, I may know a little about SCCM doing software distribution but I lack seeing an article software provisioning about that topic or any other software management (tool) that - who knows - may do more than just distribution. Is user provisioning automation just that more popular than software provisioning automation? --Alien4 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. We already have a provisioning article. That said, Wikipedia tries to avoid buzzword to whatever extent possible; Microsoft loves to create and use new buzzwords to the extent possible. SCCM is a one-of-a-kind management tool. There are tools that sufficiently similar, the same buzzwords do not describe them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion about software articles, COI, sourcing, level of detail
There's a discussion over at Talk:Hamilton C shell#Discussion requested that involves a lot of issues that are common to software-related articles on Wikipedia. Everyone's input is welcome. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Are listings of keyboard shortcuts encyclopedic information?
E.g., Bash (Unix shell)#Keyboard shortcuts. I removed these because I considered this the most obvious WP:NOTMANUAL violation that I've ever seen, but my edit got reverted. This is not about the you, which can easily be fixed, but about listing these things at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Qwertyus. I am sure you are right, unless the article is about a list of shortcuts that have gained notability or list of shortcuts about a key that has an article and the list is there to make a point that is otherwise undeliverable.
- You had all the rights to delete the list.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Frozen or duplicate headers for the large tables? Or allow column sorting?
On a resolution of 1280x800 (MBP 13'), having to scroll up and down with large tables ("Specifications and Configurations" in this article) just to fetch a data point and then match it to its label is not fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Line Delimited JSON purports to about "a standard for delimiting JSON in stream protocols". However, no accepted standard exists, and instead the article defines its own, admitting its originality. It does cite two self-published attempts at such a standard, but its talk page starts off
If anyone is interested in developing a standard for Line Delimited JSON, please comment here.
Suggestions for a better names and comments on the currently minimal specification would be gratefully received.
- Hello, Qwertyus
- I think you should have come here sooner. Try PROD, citing "no response in AfD" as a ground for PROD. If you received a response, however, you can re-open an AfD. At least, I will come. Also, be careful to give very good incentives for deletion, like with you wrote above. Generally speaking, in the event that one of your AfD didn't receive any response and got relisted once, start popularalizing it by posting participation request in WikiProjects and inviting neutral but interested parties; in this case, I could be a good candidate as I have never edited that article before.
- @Qwertyus: Actually, talk to the closing admin first; ask if he would be open to overturning "no consensus" to a WP:SOFTDEL. If that failed with no satisfactory reason, i.e. "Just because", do the conversion thing. Make it clear that you are converting a null AfD per WP:SOFTDEL. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)