Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been proposed that every WikiProject choose a single article which represents what the Project members hope each article will eventually look like, so that interested onlookers can see where a Project is heading. If this project is ready to choose such an article, please do so and link to it after the Project name at Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there are no articles ready for this yet, you may wish to focus as a group on an article which is close and/or will be relatively easy to research.

---

Contents 1 Refactoring binary numeral articles 2 Hardware taxobox 3 Merger? 4 From Wikipedia:WikiProject computers 4.1 How-to? 4.2 Comparison with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing? 5 To-Do 6 Qualculus 7 Concurrency, parallelism and distribution 8 Early computer bibliography 9 Navigational template 10 Orphan 11 Database 12 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/JFFS2 13 featured article selection implied POV? 14 Improvement Drive 15 Deletion list 16 Complete Boolean algebra (computer science) 17 Is adding many references to the same work okay? 18 Difficulties at Computer science 19 New Infobox 20 WikiProject Computer science 21 Scope 22 Question 23 Article for peer review 24 Suggested section 25 Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 26 Recruit members 27 WikiProject Computer networking 28 Deletion of source code from Wikisource 29 Robotics 30 Java programming language 31 C programming language 32 I am considering joining this WikiProject. 33 Memory timing question 34 SlickEdit article is an ad 35 My Computer 36 Shortcut 37 Power Point 38 Scope of project 39 WikiBrowse 40 Having trouble understanding an article 41 basic4gl 42 Common Unix Printing System 43 Emacs 44 Project directory 45 Request for Work 46 Floppy disk 47 Computer power supply 48 Stablepedia 49 Cat:uncategorised computing stubs 50 Spyware 51 Central processing unit FAR

[edit] Refactoring binary numeral articles

A ridiculous number and variety of articles currently exist which cover various aspects of the topic of binary numerals, binary codes, binary arithmetic, and whatever else binary formats may be used for. Here's a probably-incomplete list of them:

• Computer numbering formats
  • Extremely long and mostly unwikified; originally copied from a public-domain source[1]. Too much information for a single article, in my opinion, since it covers not only the binary system, but octal, hex, signed integers and two's complement, fixed-point and floating-point, ASCII encoding, arithmetic, bitwise operations, and BCD. The information covered here may serve as a good basis for the sum total of binary-number-related information we want to cover, though; this article might be good as a sort of hierarchical parent to all the others, if most of its existing content is split off and/or merged with other articles.
• Integer (computer science)
  • Some have suggested merging this article with Computer numbering formats, though I would disagree; this article covers subjects such as bytes, pointers, and words, and seems more closely related to computer programming, and binary numerals as a datatype, than to binary representation in general.
• Binary numeral system
  • I'm one of the primary authors of this article, so I may be biased: I think this should be the main article for discussing the numeral system itself, and giving a good overview about what binary numerals are. Much of the information currently here should probably be split off. I would consider this article to be on the same hierarchical level as hexadecimal or octal
• Bitwise operation
  • As the name suggests, this article is about bitwise operations: OR, XOR, AND, NOT, shifting, etc. Again, being one of the primary contributors to it, I am biased, but I believe this article is fairly good as it stands, provided it does not overstep its bounds.
• Truncated binary encoding
  • I have a Computer Science degree and I have no clue what this article is about. It needs work.
• Binary encoding (currently redirects to Binary and text files)
  • "Binary encoding" is a somewhat vague term, but if there is enough to say about the subject (and I believe there is), then it should have its own article. It can cover any use of binary as a code, rather than binary as a numeral system, and may link to related articles such as Gray code and Binary-coded decimal, unless it would be better to merge those into a larger article on binary encoding.
• Binary arithmetic (currently redirects to Binary coding)
  • This article should be about doing arithmetic in binary; certainly there is more than enough information between Binary numeral system and Computer numbering formats to fill a lengthy article with nothing but explanation of how addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are performed on integral, real, positive or negative binary numerals. Binary coding should redirect to Binary encoding.
• One's complement (currently redirects to Negative and non-negative numbers)
• Two's complement

Plus a variety of tangentially related articles:

• Bit
• Octal
• Hexadecimal
• Base 64
• Gray code
• Method of complements
• Fixed-point arithmetic
• Binary-coded decimal

Some of the redirected articles above may be unrelated to the topic at hand (namely, binary numbers), but due to the (I believe) poor choice of redirection, seem to be related because they are linked in a context that makes them seem related. For example, Truncated binary encoding links to Binary encoding in a way that would lead the reader to believe there is another article about binary encoding, when in fact the target of the redirect is about binary (as opposed to text) files---an almost completely unrelated subject. Similarly, Negative and non-negative numbers is hardly an article about One's complement, though it does mention the subject briefly.

Anyhow, the idea here is that many of these articles duplicate information, and many are organized in a way that could cause extreme confusion and difficulty for anyone coming here hoping to learn about binary numbers. I'm hoping we can come up with some clear boundaries on what needs to be included in a discussion on binary numbers, and how best to divide that subject into constituent articles. Duplicated information should be merged (especially the information in Binary numeral system and Computer numbering formats, and perhaps additionally Integer (computer science) and Negative and non-negative numbers.)

Previous discussion on this problem exists at Talk:Binary numeral system and most likely at the corresponding talk pages for the other articles listed above. -- Wapcaplet 17:09, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True, we got to do something with binary-related articles. I think the overall confusion is due to the lack of single point of view. Binary is just a numeral system, strictly speaking nothing to do with the computers. Negative numbers can be represented just like as ordinary decimal numbers. But on the computer, the numbers are represented differently. Negative numbers are commonly represented using two's completement, thus, you need a slightly different arithmetic to calculate such. Confusing is that for example, if you use sign and magunitude method, you have negative and positive zeros. Not mention to comparison of sign and unsigned numbers.

So my suggestion is to have basically two parts: one dealting with the binary numeral system as a mathematical topic and have some binary representation and computation on the computers. Or is it alreadly the way articles are organized now? Honestly, I am not fully aware of articles above.

Anyway, let's take a look at each article:

• Computer numbering formats - I believe our agreement is get rid of this someday.
• Integer (computer science) - it has a good content but I am not sure what the article is about. If it is about a integer datatype then it's fine but mentions about mega or tera must be gone in that case.
• Bitwise operation - actually this is a duplicate article with logical operations. But it focuses on computer topic so I guess it has a reson de'tal (not sure how to spell).
  • raison d'etre perhaps? --MarSch 16:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Binary arithmetic - I would like to see this article is actually rewritten. It is an interesting topic.

Regarding complement articles, I propose to have an article named negative numbers on the computer or something. Discussion of negative numbers with the computer in negative and non-negative numbers can go to there.

Also, having some table, popular recently, is a nice way to avoid contributors create further duplication.

-- Taku 06:52, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware taxobox

Hi. I've created a prototype for a hardware taxobox (aimed at DEC stuff right now, but it could probably be expanded) at User:Lady Lysine Ikinsile/sandbox. I think something like this would be useful for an overview of the various hardware articles .. comments? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 08:21, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

In my browser (Mozilla Firefox) at least, your taxobox's title is in black text on black background. Other than that, looks like a great idea! --FOo 16:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How strange. I'm using Firefox 0.8 and it shows as white on black.

{| border=1 align=right
 |- style="background-color: black; color: white; text-align: center;" 
 ! colspan="2" | DEC VAX

Does the color: appear correctly in the HTML source? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 16:25, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Yes, it does. How weird. --FOo 16:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

I was wondering if we could merge a new Wikiproject I just created (not knowing you guys existed!). The project is Wikipedia:WikiProject computers and we have some structure already. Would anyone be opposed if we merged? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia:WikiProject computers

OK, let's kick this off. I've realised that there are an absolute ton of articles on Computers and computing technology that we would do well to expand and cleanup. After all, one thing Wikipedia has a lot of is computer geeks :P We have programmers, sys admins, helpdesk operators, computer users, systems analysts, hardware junkies... you name it: we've got 'em. I figure that we should organise some of that enthusiasm by making a Wikiproject!

I fist came to realise just how many articles needed cleaning up and expanding upon when I edited Btrieve (which I use at work and know a little bit about). When I checked what links to it, I found Wikipedia:Free On-line Dictionary of Computing/symbols - B — an entire list of computer related terms that we still have to expand upon! And we can do it, too. We just need somewhere to coordinate things.

The initial thing I think we need to do is to work out what the various areas of computers we should be writing about. I think we can broadly categorise computing technology in these areas:

1. Software
   1. Programming
   2. Operating systems
   3. Applications
2. Networking
3. Security
4. Hardware

What do people think?

Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you clarify a bit what Programming would include? Where would articles such as Boyer-Moore string searching algorithm and Hash table fall in your proposed categorization? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Under algorithms, under programming? my structure's not set in stone... I'd be happy to take on board suggestions. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about format articles, such as ISO 9660? ... I'm wondering if part of the difficulty is that a lot of computer science is not tied to hardware or software or in fact to computers as we now know them, and so they don't sort neatly under the current structure as far as I can see. This is not to say that I necessarily have any better idea. =/ -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How-to?

I'm thinking of joining this project, but I don't like the "how-to" focus you seem to be headed toward. I'm much more interested in a historical focus. Is that part of what you have in mind, or would it just be pointless for me to join? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:10, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Any howto's written on Wikipedia will likely be moved elsewhere (probably Wikibooks) as they're not encyclopedic. Dori | Talk 02:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, either the project page as it now stands doesn't reflect the proposed project, or the project isn't going to be in Wikipedia. Someone is presumably proposing this thing. Could he/she possibly get the project page to where it gives at least a moderately accurate indication of the intended scope? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I grabbed that straight from the Wikiproject template. I thought it was odd also. Feel free to remove it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But virtually all of the "goals" are still how-to articles... -- Jmabel | Talk 09:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've restructured a bit, with some help from the bellman. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Much improved. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing?

Note: at the time this discussion section was started, the present talk page was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computers. The move here was a result of this discussion.

It seems to me that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing is virtually the same project as this one. How are the two different? [[User:Franl|— franl (talk)]] 14:01, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Gah! That wasn't on the list of Wikiprojects. I think we have a bit more structure... I'll post a message on their page asking for a merger. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The project list is divided into "active projects" and "all projects". Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing hasn't been on the active list in a while. Perhaps that's why you didn't see it. Anyway, I think a merger is best (and will generate interest and participation). [[User:Franl|— franl (talk)]] 15:33, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To-Do

I'm putting items on this list because, well, they seem like they need to be done. If anyone disagrees whether they should be done, please say so... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Fix the computer-related sections of Function, Procedure (programming), Function (programming), Procedure, Subprogram, and Subroutine so that they have clean, simple relationships to each other. Currently one can follow a link on Function titled "function procedure" which actually goes to Procedure (programming) which is a redirect to Procedure, which disambiguates a procedure in computer programming with a link to Subprogram which is a redirect to Subroutine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've turned Procedure (programming) into a redirect straight to Subroutine. Some evidence indicates that Subroutine was originally Subprogram; does anyone else think that perhaps it should be moved back? My feeling on doing so is that all subroutines are subprograms but not all subprograms are subroutines, thus Subprogram is the more appropriate location. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would prefer not to. "Subroutine" is very standard terminology in a number of languages (not to mention computer architectures, come to think of it, since many have built-in support for subroutines) for a named entity that is called (usually with arguments) and (optionally) returns a value. It's a very well understood, and, more importantly, well defined concept. To me, "subprogram" is a much less well-defined concept, and I therefore think it would be a bad idea to put the two on the same page. Keep "subroutine" for the well-defined programming language construct. Noel (talk) 20:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Reorganize the very broad [[Category:Computer terminology]] into more manageable subcategories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Help with moving huge piles of computer stubs {{compu-stub}} over to the sharper category of microcomputer stubs {{microcompu-stub}}. --Wernher 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Or to other appropriate specific categories, which are listed at Category:Computer stubs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, on this subject -- is Category:Programming language stubs appropriate for stubs about things that can be implemented in programming languages, or only stubs about programming languages themselves? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking at the existing stubs, it might be good to separate "software" (i.e., that which is not hardware) from "applications" (i.e., a finished program that a user interacts with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qualculus

We are having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Qualculus on what to do with the article Qualculus, which seems to be used as a methodology for designing databases. Basically, we are trying to establish whether such a thing really exists. I was hoping that some of you could give us some input on this matter. -- Jitse Niesen 16:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest listing this on VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concurrency, parallelism and distribution

The wikipedia pages dealing with these concepts came to my attention through items on the PlanetLISP news feed, and I'm unhappy with what I've so far seen. I've put together a first attempt at a definition on my weblog [2]; I'm interested in putting together a more useful and consistent terminology for Wikipedia that is closer to what researchers use. I haven't got a great deal of time before the semester here ends (in three weeks) to comment on & edit the particular pages, but I thought I'd try to get feedback on:

• What definitions should we be using? Are there any serious problems with the definitions I proposed in my weblog entry?
• Where should the definitions go? (I suggest we create a Parallelism and concurrency page);
• Can we assemble a collection of definitions from authoratative sources? ---- Charles Stewart 13:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I ran into problems finding good, precise definitions of these concepts while trying to tune up the Cilk article. To clarify -- how would you classify SIMD (I believe that's the term): Single Instruction, Multiple Data?

I think "distributed" is a little easier to separate out from the others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early computer bibliography

For those of you interested in early computers, I am assembling a large annotated bibliography on the subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Early computers/Books, as part of the Early computers WikiProject. I'm also starting to collect a directory of web links to sites with particular broad and authoritative collections of online stuff, although that's not as far along yet. Noel (talk) 17:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational template

I'm writing a navigational template for GNU/Linux - various distros and the like will be linked. See Template:Linux if you would like to help. Alphax ^τεχ 02:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? I'm stumped. Alphax ^τεχ 03:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few. Here is the template

Linux

Linux distributions - Comparison of Linux distributions

Open source - Linus's law - Linus Torvalds

Linux kernel - GNU/Linux naming controversy

there seems to be something wrong with tr:Template:Linux... --MarSch 16:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan

Could someone take a look at Binkered and merge it, categorise it etc where appropriate. Thanks --nixie 01:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Database

Do databases fall within the portfolio of this WikiProject? If so, why do they seem to be omitted from the list? If not, why not? Does some other group handle DB, DBMS, etc.? If so, who are they?

Thank You! — Xiong (talk) 04:51, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/JFFS2

The article JFFS2, about a journaling file system for flash memory devices, has been listed for deletion. Votes welcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] featured article selection implied POV?

Purusing WP:FA, I notice there are three featured articles on Winows and let's say one (Common Unix Printing System) on any oher OS. I understand the vagaries of interest, expertise, and machinations of WP:FAC all come into play, but does anyone else think that we should make a concerted effort to get some non-Windows OS articles to featured status to avoid the appearance of a pro-Microsoft POV? Linux has been nominated twice. It doesn't look like Mac OS or Unix have ever been nominated. I'm curious what others think about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Sysop has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article to support it.--Fenice 06:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of votes for deletion on articles related to computers and computing. You can find the list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computers.

Since you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of computer-related topics, you might want to monitor this list. You might also want to keep an eye on technology-related deletions and internet-related deletions.

If you find the list useful, please also help to maintain it by adding new items and archiving old ones. Thanks!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

PS New members are needed and welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

[edit] Complete Boolean algebra (computer science)

Can someone here tell me whether the term "complete Boolean algebra" is in fact used for the concept defined in the article linked above? In Googling the only references I can find to it are probable reflections of an old article at Complete Boolean algebra (before I changed that article to the mathematical notion), and of the following site, http://users.senet.com.au/~dwsmith/concept1.htm , which frankly does not inspire confidence. If the dwsmith article simply made up the term, we should probably remove Complete Boolean algebra (computer science), though the content might be recreated under a different name. --Trovatore 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is adding many references to the same work okay?

Hi everybody. Recently in an attempt to help increase the number of useful references in computer science related articles I've been going through some of the seminal works of computer science that I happen to own, looking for topics that I can add them to. For each topic I've located a specific section in the book directly relevant to that topic and cited it specifically by chapter/section and page numbers. Although I made little to no changes to the articles I visited in an effort to cover more ground, my hope was that readers would find the information useful for learning more, and editors would find the information useful for expanding the article. I added about 150 references to Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming and another 150 to CLRS (Introduction to Algorithms).

It seems that at least one editor was alarmed by these changes however, and I wanted to get some feedback on whether you guys believe these changes are appropriate and a positive contribution to the articles. Also, is it legitimate to put them in the "References" section if they're not yet cited, or do they belong in some kind of "Further Reading" section? Thanks a lot for your feedback. Deco 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To help those who want to review, here's a list of some articles I modified:

Iterated logarithm - Big O notation - Master theorem - Indicator function - Insertion sort - Bubble sort - Horner scheme - Loop invariant - Heapsort - Extended Euclidean algorithm - Quicksort - Counting sort - Radix sort - Bucket sort - Stack (data structure) - Queue - Linked list - Parallel array - Free list - Tree data structure - Red-black tree - Interval tree - Disjoint-set data structure - Dynamic programming - Amortized analysis - B-tree - Binomial heap - Linear programming - Minimum spanning tree - Max flow min cut theorem - Shortest path problem - Network flow - Ford-Fulkerson algorithm - Strassen algorithm - Fast Fourier transform - NP-complete - Complexity classes P and NP - Approximation algorithm - Computational geometry - String searching algorithm - Rabin-Karp string search algorithm - P (complexity) - Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm - Convex hull - Greatest common divisor - Euclidean algorithm - Modular arithmetic - Primality test - Chinese remainder theorem - Kruskal's algorithm - Kruskal's algorithm - Prim's algorithm - Bellman-Ford algorithm - Invertible matrix - Matrix chain multiplication - Priority queue - Comparison sort - Perfect hash function - Traveling salesman problem - Hash table - Selection algorithm - Vertex cover problem - Floyd-Warshall algorithm - Matching - Adjacency list - Set cover problem - Adjacency matrix - Breadth-first search - Depth-first search - Topological sorting - Strongly connected component - Dynamic array - Huffman coding - Merge sort - NP (complexity) - Binary search tree - Accounting method - Simplex algorithm - Discrete Fourier transform - RSA - Fermat primality test - Miller-Rabin primality test - Pollard's rho algorithm - Binary GCD algorithm - Graham scan - Gift wrapping algorithm

I looked through a few of your edits; the ones I saw looked fine to me. I also don't think all references need to be cited. That's not a requirement in a journal article, so I don't see why it should be here. (I do think there's a distinction between a genuine reference and a "further reading" entry, though. A reference should give either background information for, or more detail on, something discussed in the article. "Further reading" might be on something that's merely related. That would be a useful distinction that I haven't seen made very much; maybe it would be worth discussing on one of the talk pages of the style pages.) --Trovatore 03:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, particularly since those two are standard works in the field. I think it is legitimate to add them as a "reference" if they've been used to verify the content. This includes at some point in your life having read them to learn about an algorithm, in the case you've made corrections to an article or just read through it and found what it says to be correct. Fredrik | tc 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of detailed references (see Jean-François de Galaup, count de La Pérouse for an example of my highly detailed style of referncing), so I'm happy you're doing this. Keep on! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement. I'm glad to know my effort was not in vain or detrimental. I shall continue to seek useful references to add. Deco 01:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I use wikipedia as my first line of defense against ignorance. It's really great to be able to know just where to go for more information (or to confirm/deny an edit that is about something confusing). I think what you are doing is fantastic, Deco, and you should definitely keep it up. I hope I can find good references for stuff I do in the future to match this! - JustinWick 06:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulties at Computer science

Hey, folks. I figure that people who watch this project probably know something about computer science. It would be a big help if a few people could take a look at what's going down on that article recently. It seems to me like a couple of people with particularly idiosyncratic definitions of "computer science" have been trying to push their views there, quite opposed to the usual meanings of the expression. --FOo 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Infobox

I didn't know where on the project page to place this, so I though I would mention it here. I have created a new infobox at {{Infobox Computer}}. It doesn't have very many fields, because I am not sure what people would want, but I look forward to seeing it developed. Also, it is currently only implemented at iMac, so it needs editors to add it to the pages of their favorite computer.

Example
Example of Example
Type:	Desktop
Developer:	Exampleware
Released:	January 16, 2006
Processor(s):	π GHz G6 -200 KHz G9
Website:	Example.com

{{Infobox Computer
|name = Example
|developer = Exampleware
|type = Desktop
|photo = [[Image:IMac.jpg]]
|caption = [[Example of Example]]
|first_release_date = [[January 16]], [[2006]]
|processor = π [[GHz]] G6<br> -200 KHz G9
|website = [http://example.com Example.com]
}}

[edit] WikiProject Computer science

As some of the participants in this project may have already noticed, the previously defunct WikiProject Computer science is now active again. Since there's obviously some potential for overlap in subject matter between the two projects, I thought I'd stick a note here to let you know that we're back up and running. --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science by accident then suggested that a couple article areas I been working on perhaps belong there, but was told no, they do not fit in there, but perhaps they fit in here. So I asking if they within the scope of this project.

• Computer security audit
  • Anyone, who has read computer or security news in recent years, will have noticed that there has been an epidemic of major corporations in the news thanks to computer insecurity disasters of all kinds. Further, anyone who uses both a PC and a non-Windows OS can see that from a computer security perspective there is a world of difference between what the security exposure problems are. It sometimes seems like the cyber criminals are winning the war. So this article on what can be done economically for people and companies, who are not neccessarily computer experts, to protect themselves from becoming cyber crime victims. I joined Wiki about 6 months ago, and this was one of my first contributions, but I was inexperienced in NPOV and Wiki style, so as I have been learning, through contributions to other articles, I return here periodically to further improve this article.
  • Now I know what a Information technology audit is. There is a world of difference betwen an Information technology audit and computer security audit. The IT audit is where some outside speciality firm arrives and does a top down detail analysis, which may employ some automated tools like those found in computer security audit, but the IT security audit focus is on getting everything that can be checked, a comprehensive and expensive inspection. computer security audit is what can be done with automated tools, some of them easily downloadable freeware, or usable by going to web sites. They are available for just about every OS and for the most part can be run by people who are novices in computer security. Because of expense, and using outside talent, the work of an IT audit is at risk of making proposals that get ignored. Plus, as we have seen in some computer security breaches in the news, managment personnel who call for some kind of security audit, have sometimes called for the wrong kind for their needs, they passed the wrong kind, then they got security breached in areas that were never audited, and they tried to sue the auditors. Thus there are advantages to using the bottom up automated audit approach which is run by the people to be audited, and acts as an educational process into what areas they need to do a better job of self-educating themselves.
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act, particularly its implementation, has had a huge impact on computer staffs at large companies, particularly in the areas of certifying good computer security and good control of software change management. When I visited the SOX article, I was dismayed to find that it did not seem to be doing a good job of interlinking the meanings of the esoreric accounting auditing and investing terminoloty, some of which probably comes uner Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics.
  • I do not see a Wiki article on software change management. Perhaps this is under some other name. There are tons of packages out there to help with this, as it was a huge area before SOX came along and mandated that certain standards of this area be employed at companies covered by SOX. Basically, the issue is that software should only be altered with appropriate approval process, and before implementing any changes, there needs to be proper software testing.
    • For folks unfamiliar with SOX it is a set of accounting auditing and management standards for companies doing business in the USA, which includes many companies based in other nations, but for purely domestic companies, it only applies to those who are traded on the stock market, or do business with those, which means there are a lot of companies in the USA that SOX does not apply to.
• Enterprise resource planning
  • For the past 20 years my career has been computer support person for ERP. Prior to that I worked in software for transportation, retail, wholesale distribution, publishing, manufacturing prior to ERP. Currently I supporting BPCS. Anyhow, seems to me there are many Wiki articles related to various aspects of these application areas, but the vast majority of them are either stubs, or dominated by people who have such limited exposure that there is great risk of a form of POV.
    • Very few people have a good understanding and appreciation the worlds of commercial package software, open source, and home brew, thus, people who work in one of these areas can have a tendency to write disparagingly about the others.
    • We have several editors with knowledge of failed implementations, and several who know about successes, but few who like me, are familiar with several of both, thus I see what seems to be an imbalance, with writings that would portray one or the other as the normal condition.
    • Basically we are trying to describe a reality that is extremely complex, that needs a business analyst to thoroughly appreciate all the nuances, but 99.99% of the people in the field are not up to such credentials, thus Wiki suffers.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge need for increasing coverage of computer (in)security. I wonder whether there is enough interest for a separate wikiproject. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 09:21Z

[edit] Question

User:Capsela and I have a small disagreement that perhaps this community can provide third opinions on. He created the articles Boot partition and System partition as defined by Windows operating systems. I suggested (and edited the boot partition page) to redirect to the Booting article. I later found the Windows NT Startup Process article as well. Capsela feels that his information is important and distinctive enough to merit two additional articles. I feel they are short and should be merge into one of these single, comprehensive articles. Thoughts? Ryanjunk 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a member of this project, but I'll insert my 2c worth anyway :-) The System partition/Boot partition article looks like it's essentially just a definition. IMHO it should be merged into the Booting and/or Windows NT Startup Process articles. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for peer review

Hi folks. I submitted the article X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments (Peer review page). I hope this is the correct place to ask. Thank you. - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested section

Although it looks to me like this project is mostly dormant, I'd like to suggest that adding a section to this page for "Missing articles". While a lot of people believe our coverage of computing is quite good, I can say from personal experience (I read a lot of research papers primarily related to supercomputing) it's not uncommon for me to run across specific terminology that I have not heard of before, which doesn't have an article on wikipedia. Two articles I wrote last week - Cellular architecture and Gustafson's law, are prime examples. Two more I have seen in literature but which do not have articles are Sun-Ni's law (related to the memory footprint of a process as the number of compute nodes increases) and Dancehall configuration (some kind of memory configuration for multi-node systems). Raul654 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

...guess not. Raul654 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruit members

The newly set-up WikiProject C++ is now recruiting members. Please join if you are interested in C++ programming. Deryck C. 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Computer networking

Could someone involved in this project take a look at the Computer networking WikiProject and see if it could become a descendant. From what I can tell it seems this project is in fact looking for a networking project to coordinate networking related efforts (judging from the red link in the descendant section), so hopefully something can be worked out. --Bruce 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted the silence as okay. I have now defined Computer networking WikiProject as descendant. Have I missed to publish information about this someware? Is it okay to move all networking stuff from WikiProject Computing to Wikiproject Computer Networking. Mange01 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of source code from Wikisource

I would like to alert this community to the fact that Wikisource has decided to delete all reference data, some of which may be of interest to this project. This raises the question of whether some of this material should be hosted at Wikipedia. See Wikisource:Category:Deletion requests/Reference_data and the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium. In particular all source code to be deleted.--agr 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I frankly never thought either Wikipedia or Wikisource was an appropriate place for source code, mainly because neither uses a license appropriate for software. This is part of why I started my own wiki for code. Maybe there should be a new Wikimedia project for hosting this information. I do think illustrative code examples are important for Wikipedia though, if not taken to excess like they were once in quicksort. Deco 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny there was a proposal of how your wiki would be a great sister project under the Wikimedia umbrella on wikisource-l not two days ago. However, it was suggested that you were happy to remain independent. If you are in fact interested, I believe you would have alot of support. Here is a link.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robotics

Does robotics belong here? Of all the wikiprojects this was the one that seemed most fitting. - Jak (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java programming language

Java programming language is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy

[edit] C programming language

C programming language is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am considering joining this WikiProject.

Hello. I regularly contribute to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies. I am the writer of the Google Groups article.

I am looking for WikiProjects to make steady contributions of information to articles of interest, and to make Wikifriends with common interests so we can collaborate on articles of interest.

I am considering joining this WikiProject, but I need to ensure that this is the appropriate WikiProject for me, as there may be a more specific WikiProject for my area of interest. Is there a WikiProject Internet? If so, it may be more suitable for me. If not, I will stick to this WikiProject.

Perhaps someone could look at the Google Groups article and offer me some feedback which I could use to improve my editing skills. In addition, if you know a good WikiProject for Singapore TV shows/movies, please let me know (or I might create it). I am also checking out WikiProject Chess, as I am interested in chess, although I am less likely to make contributions to chess-related articles, and have already signed up for the Good Articles WikiProject, hoping to make the newly-merged Netscape article a Good Article!

Thanks for reading.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory timing question

We don't seem to have an article on Memory timing ... if we do have it, could someone please create this as a redirect, otherwise, could someone please write an article? This seems like an important subject to me, but alas, I don't know enough about it to write about it. What does 5-5-5-12 mean anyway? --Cyde Weys 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlickEdit article is an ad

Help! I'm not a member of this project (no time!), but I just wrote an article on SlickEdit, a fairly popular source code editor. It got marked as sounding like an ad. I don't have any sort of relationship with SlickEdit, Inc., but don't know how to make it sound less ad-like. Any suggestions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It could probably use a lot of trimming. The article should limit itself to discussing the notable and salient facts about the editor; not read like a laundry list of product features. The current "Supported languages", "Support" and "Criticisms" sections can probably be condensed down to a couple of sentences. --Piet Delport 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Computer

This is actualy my computer. I need an upgrade!

My Computer Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 Display: 17" Benq LCD Monitor Motherboard: Asus P4B-FX Video card: ATi GeCube RADON 9200 SE Sound card: Intergrated CPU: Intel Celeron 2590 MHz 64 bit RAM: 512 DDR1 Expansion cards: None Power supply: 300 Watts Optical disc drive 1: AOpen DVD/R-RW Optical disc drive 2: None HD: 40GB Barracuda 7200.7 HDD Keyboard: Basic Keyboard Mouse: Microsoft Optical Basic Printer: Canon MP150 Series Printer Internet Browser: Mozilla Firefox Internet Bandwidth: 45.2 Kbps