Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

New Proposals for actions

I propose the follwing actions :-

• 1) Early computers task force is a task force of WP:COMPUTING. Currently they have no WP 1.0 assessment categories for quality/importance. This would mean we need to make categories for them and add the parameters for the workgroup in the {{WikiProject Computing}} banner ( "|early-comp=yes|early-comp-importance=" ) and bind them to the newly created categories. The would also mean addition of {{WikiProject Computing}} with the new parameters for articles in Category:Early computers , Category:One-of-a-kind computers, History of computing hardware.
  
• 2) WP Websites is currently without much of activity. I made a proposal for making this as a task force of WP:COMPUTING . You can see the discussion here . It was unanimously agreed upon. This would mean making categories and banner additions for the WP Websites also.
• 3) WikiProject Amiga is a descendant project which is marked as inactive. I have made a similar proposal for the project to make as a taskforce of WP:COMPUTING here.

Thoughts ?? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is how the Project banner may look with the taskforce parameters

{{WikiProject Computing|class=Start|importance=Top|early-comp=yes|early-comp-importance=Low}}

-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've no strong views on this - if others agree that's fine and there's certainly plenty to do. Jamesday (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• You mean that Early computers task force will be (should be?) one of the multiple task forces from WP:COMPUTING? Sounds pretty reasonable but does it fit with WP:COMPUTING vision? --pavlosh (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Early computers task force is already a task force of WP:COMPUTING . Currently there is no support for Early computers task force on {{WikiProject Computing}} banner and no seperate stats/categories for WP 1.0 assessments. I am proposing to do that only -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I support your proposal. --pavlosh (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Early computers was moved to a task force in order to stave off deletion (as a project). It is inactive and I think the WP:COMPUTING editors should discuss whether this is a task force they really want to support, or if it's just clutter. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I promise to make this task force active and hopefully more people will join in as we progress -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 04:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BRFA filed for the creation of WP 1.0 assessment categories for Early Computers Task force. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Categories for "Early Computers " were made as a part of BRFA trial. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles in Category:Early computers , Category:One-of-a-kind computers are tagged for Early Computers task force -- Tinu Cherian - 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Added support for Early computers task force , WP Websites and WikiProject Amiga in {{WikiProject Computing}} -- Tinu Cherian - 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Created WP1.0 Assessment Categories for WP Websites and WikiProject Amiga also -- Tinu Cherian - 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of WikiProject Computing?

Hello - what exactly is the scope of this WikiProject? I don't really see a difference between this and WP: WikiProject Computer Science. I'm curious, because I've been seeing an increase in tagging for this project (for the past few days). If you tag Player Project, that's probably OK, but when I see activation function being tagged, I'm beginning to doubt the scope of this project and it's usefulness. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you see the Goals and Scope of the project on the main page , This WikiProject aims to organise, expand and improve all Wikipedia's articles on areas or subjects relating to computers , computing and information technology. We have a very broad scope, so we hope to collaborate and communicate with other Wikiprojects that overlap our domain. This project is like an umberalla project for all computer and computing related topics . Computing is the activity of developing and using computer technology, including computer hardware and software. It is the computer-specific part of information technology. Computer science is the study of the theoretical foundations of computing and the application of the theories in computing. WP: WikiProject Computer Science is just a subset of the scope of this wide project. Similar to WP:Christianity and all its allied projects. The ultimate aim of our project is to identify all computer related articles, tagg , assess and improve them to the highest wikipedia standards. Please note that WP:Computers was merged to this wikiproject long back . Because this is a very broad scope project , our long term goal is to divide into lots of taskforces and rope in wikipedians of specific area of interest. Once we started to revive this relatively inactive project and started tagging articles , we discovered around 6000+ articles already without even a talk page , let alone attention of a wikiproject(read project tagging) . This effort of tagging will help us to identify lots of potentially valuable articles -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you are tagging the articles without a WikiProject, I fully support you on that. I'm just not clear on what belongs to CS and what belongs to Computing. From your comment, the separation seems to be place between theory and application, but I would argue that there is no clear separation between the two. For example, do you think your WikiProject should include Category:Artificial intelligence? There's a lot of theory in AI, but also a huge impact on the applications side (like robotics). Thanks! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To divide Computing and comp sc by a clear line is definitely impossible and that is why we have WP:COMPUTING which is all inclusive.... I was also thinking of adding Category:Artificial intelligence also , but I I felt it is not exactly computing alone but overlaps with Robotics , Technology and Engineering. Therefore I decided to add them after a discussion later. In the long run , we may decide to do away with multiple banners and have a single {{WikiProject Computing}} banner with taskforce or descendant wikiproject banners -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think that Computing has a greater scope than CS - I think there should be a quick merge of the two WikiProjects under Computing to reduce the confusion. Thanks for your inputs, Cherian! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs and suggestions. Hopefully we may see a major consolidation of computer related wikiprojects and more activity ... I guess may be you can consider to join us too -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Iraq the model was recently tagged and I don't see how this could possibly fall under the Computing project. Assuming I'm correct, how do I remove the tagging so it doesn't happen again? tvillars (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason this happened the above article falls under Category:Internet stubs . I have overlooked that this entire cat may fall under this project scope. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.. We will take care -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I wouldn't mind seeing computer science folded into a task force. Despite the size of its scope, it actually is highly inactive as a project, and I think it could potentially benefit from the infrastructure of a bigger project. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Delisting of history of computing hardware from the Featured article set.

After some months of effort, the Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of computing hardware is still on the block for its star to be chopped off. You are welcome to work on this article to keep it featured. Come join the fun. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Featured Article Reviewers have wondered aloud why more editors do not jump in and contribute to save this article from losing its star. Some of the tasks remaining include fixing citations and a general copyedit. You are welcome to go to Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of computing hardware and ask the Featured Article Reviewers what more needs to be done. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 633 of the articles assigned to this project, or 31.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done : Added the template to the main page -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Win32??

If you look around Microsoft's site long enough, you will find that "Win32" started between Win 3.11 and Win95a, with the release of the Win32s library.

When people say software runs on "Win32", they rarely, if ever, mean it needs the Win32S layer in Win 3.11

A few years ago, "Win32" meant anything from 98SE forward. And this is still current usage on websites for software that isn't currently being upgraded regularly.

In some cases it still means this, in some cases it means Win2K forward, in some cases XP forward, and in all too many it seems to mean people upgraded their compilers or libraries and didn't read the docs or change settings as needed, and it means the program is compiled to run on XP only even though it doesn't use any resources or system calls exclusive to XP.

I don't imagine people will quit using 98SE because Microsoft says so, any more than they will abandon Linux for Vista because Microsoft says so.

I am requesting that the term "Win32" simply be abandoned, and replaced in every instance with a more stable, more accurate term.

The people still using 98SE or WinME or Win2K can live with reading docs to find out whether something supports their OS. They are used to this. They can't necessarily deal with stupid installers that overwrite system files without checking for the appropriate OS (the same filename and a newer version number are just NOT GOOD ENOUGH to identify an appropriate update for Windows - its versioning system is not that simple), or situations where you have to manually track the version number of every library called by every library the software uses, to discern whether it has any XP-only components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.126 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Win32 started with Windows NT 3.1. It was retrofitted in the form of Win32s (s for subset) into Win (16-bit) 3.11 (source compatibility only).

I'm not sure what you're asking for re. "abandoning" the term. What term would you suggest, and what do you want it to mean? Really, a "Win32 app" is simply one that is written to and linked against the Win32 APIs (as opposed to WIn16, or the native APIs, or the Posix APIs under WinSFU, etc.).

As far as MS is concerned the term is not and isn't supposed to reference any particular version of Windows.

In general a "Win32 app" built for a given version of Windows will run on any later version of the same OS family: Win95 through Win98 and ME are one family, NT 3.1 through NT 4, Win2K, XP, etc. are the other. (Heck, I'm currently running Kermit 95 (yes, built for Windows 95) on Vista x64.) Even cross-"family" things will work as long as you are on a later version and the app doesn't use family-specific features. A huge example of family-specific features would be security: The 9x family has all the APIs but it's as though all the "locks" are always unlocked; all access checks simply succeed. An app written to expect that behavior might have a tough time on the NT family.

It's tough to abandon a term that's still an official Microsoft term. Again, what term (or terms) would you suggest as replacements? What else could mean "written to the Win32 API"?

A bizarre twist: It's still called "Win32" in its 64-bit form on x64 and Itanium. Even though pointers, handles, and things derived from those types are now 64 bits wide. So you could argue successfully that "Win32" means even less than it used to because it no longer even implies a 32-bit app! Still, it's MS's term for that concept and that's a very tough stream to swim against. Jeh (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found that a more "accurate" (by virtue of being a little less precise) term to refer to "apps written to the Win32 API" is "unmanaged code". This is often used by Microsoft and the development community to distinguish "Win32 code" from ".NET code" (which is more accurately/formally called "managed code").

Unmanaged code is generally written in C or C++, and calls any of the native Windows APIs. Managed code is written in one of the managed (i.e. .NET) languages, and calls any of the .NET classes. (Either of these can also call third-party libraries compiled in their respective unmanaged/managed state.)

Q: Would this distinction help those who wish to be more accurate (than the arguably more confusing "Win32")? It would almost certainly need to be accompanied with parenthetical references to the commonly-(mis)used "Win32" and similar terms, just to make sure those who still use that terminology aren't left scratching their heads. However, I'd certainly favour the unmanaged code/managed code approach.ParanoidMike (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no context to this discussion. Where, specifically, has the use of "Win32" become problematic? I will agree that, where possible, a more accurate and less technical term be used. But this should not be applied as a rule, in any case. Wikipedia does not ban or censor words. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

System_Architecture_Evolution

Hi,

the article System_Architecture_Evolution should be classified as Top Importance and would need further development. It is important as it will be the 4th generation mobile network technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.106.4 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All code in templates proposal

Please take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#All_code_samples_should_be_transcluded, and respond on that page. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for New Page

I would like to request a new page on Nexsan Technologies to complement this page [[1]] Nexsan is one of only a few companies on this list that do not have a brief history page and they fit the guidelines for when a company is typically included in Wikipedia. Disclosure, I have a COI in that I work as a consultant to Nexsan. I will volunteer information via talk pages from public sources, and allow the community to determine what to include. I will not engage in editing directly any Nexsan-related page. Anyone wishing to contact me may do so at [rbectel@newventurecom.com] or via my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMBECTEL (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Review my page

I have a 3rd party article that was recently written on our company. I cant firgure out how to submit it to the right people for approval... how do I continue with this? The link to the article is http://www.sdbj.com/article.asp?aID=365753202.3575403.1680393.4680706.1037038.732&aID2=129252 We made the front cover of the San Diego Business Journal and there will soon be an article in Hotel and Motel Management magazine. What now, how do I get my page to "go live"

70.166.80.116 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FIRST Gary King (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to follow through with what the last person told me to do "I have put a draft of the deleted material at User:Eastvillage/HotelPlanner.com. You can work on it there; when you have something that meets our standards and is ready to "go live", leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites asking for a review. If it meets folks approval, others (not you) can move it back as an actual article. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

How do I get the REVIEW and get others to approve?

70.166.80.116 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article still needs references, per WP:CITE. Gary King (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the reference... now what? Eastvillage1 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the reference... now what? Eastvillage1 (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

what is going on with my page. I thought it was on its way to going live but now i feel like its not. Can someone explain what is going on? Eastvillage1 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Prices

The pricing given is not just for the companies that are posted. Many other companies has reduced their price into the same ranger per GB (i.e. Samsung, OCZ). In fact, the price dropping was first done by OCZ.

That part needs to be either deleted or edited for factual accuracy.

Huh? Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The latest DNS flaw

Can someone please update the DNS_cache_poisoning page in view of the latest discovered flaw? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for Descendant Projects

I am proposing the use of the integrated banner of {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant projects , if there is a consensus among the project members...
Example :

{{WikiProject Computing|class=start|importance=Mid|science=yes|science-importance=low}}

will produce...

• This project and its autonomy will remain the same...
• No pages have to be moved as a task force.

The advantages of this are :-

• Intergated banner which takes up less space and avoid clutter of different Computer related WikiProjects.
• Greater co-operation and co-ordination among computer related wikiProjects.
• Each WikiProject doesnt have to maintain an assessment department...Since the standards for WP 1.0 Assessment is same for all WikiProjects, single assessment is only required for all the computer related WikiProjects. This means more time for individual computer wikiprojects to help and improve the articles in their scope..
• Seperate stats for quality and importance for both parent and descendant projects ( as before)
• Catergory intersection of quality and importance available like Category:Amiga articles by quality and importance for WP:Amiga

Possible Actions:

• Replace {{WikiProject Computer science}} with {{WikiProject Computing}} and our project parameters in the article talk pages .
• Copy the importance in existing {{WikiProject Computer science}} to |science-importance= in {{WikiProject Computing}} banner.

Thoughts ??

• WikiProject Computer networking: I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the WikiProject Computer networking here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• WP:Computer Science : Proposal made to WP:Computer Science can be found here -- Tinu Cherian - 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• WP:Software : Proposal made to WP:Software can be found here -- Tinu Cherian - 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Vehement Oppose - I oppose this integration so far as it would include any project that is not marked as "inactive." Any active project no matter how small or how closely tied to this project should remain fully autonomous and I propose that insofar as this project overlaps those its scope should be reduced to alleviate the overlap rather than trying to make this an overarching superproject. This project does not have the level of activity or participation necessary to care for all of the articles within its current scope and it should therefor not try to enforce its will on any other active project. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)