Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Power Architecture on Wikipedia

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

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

An article: Power Architecture
A navigation template: Template:Power Architecture
A category: Category:Power Architecture
Inclusion in the text of up to 236 articles (this is based a in-text search of "Power Architecture")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of this sounds reasonable to me. The only standard other than the Power ISA that I see mentioned on Power Architecture is the Power Architecture Platform Reference; other standards can probably have their own pages as well.

Power.org appears to be dead; is that a further sign that "Power Architecture", as a concept, is also dead? The OpenPOWER Foundation page (which I just fixed to use https: for all openpowerfoundation.org links, as that site seems to reject Boring Old No-TLS HTTP) says that "Power.org is still the governing body around the Power Architecture instruction set" - is that now out of date?

And is there anything in the PowerPC ISA that isn't in the Power ISA? If not, the two ISAs should perhaps be discussed on the same page - perhaps have a single page for the ISA, have "PowerPC ISA" redirect to it, and combine ISA information from PowerPC and Power Architecture on that page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Curses to IBMs terrible naming strategies. And I agree with Guy Harris.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: I'm almost certain "Power Architecture" as a brand is dead. I can't find any non-incidental or legacy use of it on IBM's website (which seems to use the OpenPOWER brand instead). It's the same for the OpenPOWER Foundation. I can't find any current use of Power Architecture using that website's search function or with Google.

I think merging the PowerPC article and Power ISA content from Power Architecture is a better solution than having a separate article for the Power ISA. The latter is clearly an outgrowth of the former: The manual for Power ISA 2.07B () says in the preface that Power ISA 2.03 was created in 2006 by combining PowerPC 2.02 with PowerPC Book E, which was then not a core part of the architecture. Note that in Power ISA 3.0 B, all of the embedded features introduced in 2.03 were removed (as documented in the preface of ). I personally don't think this is relevant to the question of whether PowerPC and Power ISA can be covered in the same article, as 3.0 B is still a development of something that began with PowerPC. 99Electrons (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

My 2¢ is that most of this confusion is due to IBM's inconsistent use and definition of what's what. I've tried my best to unclutter it, but hell, it's not easy. I cant be as invested in Wikipedia as I've been in the past, so I gladly pass on the enthusiasm to whomever what to keep on pushing. Most suggestion seems reasonable. You have my blessing going forward. -- Henriok (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree The phrase "Power Architecture" is really dumb and ambiguous, to distinguish its usage for several different things, there is need to use correct phrase. Editor-1 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of LWN.net on the reliable sources noticeboard

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

AfD on Harald Tveit Alvestrand

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox OS component

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

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello WikiProject Computing members,

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

Please spread the word,

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

.

Apple TV

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

Nomination of Portal:Haskell (programming language) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Haskell (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Java (programming language) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Java (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Python (programming language) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Python (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk:Search_engine_optimization Add other People Around The Globe

I feel as if only people who work at google or closely associated with and/or American is not enough in this list. Dprophitjr (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

New Page: Cipher Knowledge 360

I am interested in creating a new page that would fall under the Computing wiki project. It's a competitive intelligence program called Cipher; I am currently a student of intelligence studies. It's relatively new and has developed by Knowledge 360. I was hoping you would be able to offer me tips to make the page more successful from the start. Any insight you can give is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lash975 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

By "page" I presume you mean a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about topics that have already been noticed by independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the first place to publish information on a topic. Our guideline Notability goes into more detail. As you start to read that policy, you will see mention of special-topic notability guidelines (e.g. for books, or for sports and athletes). I don't think there is any special-topic notability guideline for computer software, cryptographic systems, or mathematics, so you can just go by the general notability guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any independent third party coverage of this software? I mean reviews in mainstream media, not some no name blogs or community sites. Without strong sources, new article would not survive for long. Could you link here 2-3 best sources you found, so we may review them? Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Network security / ARP spoofing - Requesting review/info

Hello, (ARP = Address resolution protocol) ARP spoofing is a pretty common network security vulnerability and the ARP spoofing page does not include proper information about how to defend against such an attack in the defense tools section for windows, I tested a lot of the tools my self and most of them do not work properly, at least on windows 10, which is pretty unacceptable seeing how common and easy this attack is to execute, I am not knowledgeable enough to add certain information either, if any network literates can add to it, that would be great Apool125 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a network that uses ARP and an attacker with direct access to the local network segment? If so, a VPN is considered to be the best defense. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mahara (software)

Newly created article that might not be notable per WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. There may be specific notability guidelines for software, so I was wondering if someone could take a look at this and assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like solid sourced article now. However, as usual, you may check: 1) if these sources have broad coverage of the article subject, or only passing mentions; 1) if their publisher publishes anything (vanity press, some open access "journals"), or is more selective; 3) if there is some connection of authors of said sources to the article subject (eg. developers themselves), or it is third party independent coverage. Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Pavlor. I also asked about this at WT:FOSS#Mahara (software) and another editor named Newslinger was able to find the additional sources and has been cleaning up the article. I'm sure any additional feedback/suggestions you may have would be welcome on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the definition of "general purpose computer"?

I was under the impression that a general purpose computer is a computer that can, in theory, be used for many different purposes. As an example, the microcontroller in my keyboard (an ARM Cortex) is a general purpose computer (the same chip is used in PCs, toasters, printers, robots...) despite it being used for a special purpose and despite it not being easy to reprogram to do something else.

I was just reading our article on Colossus computer, and found that Colossus computer#Influence and fate claims that the definition of a general purpose computer is not whether it actually is usable for general purposes but [A] whether it was designed for a specific purpose (which would imply that the Intel 4004 isn't a general purpose computer) and [B] to be general purpose a computer must be Turing complete. (Actually, no computer is fully Turing complete because no computer has an infinite amount of memory available, but we traditionally ignore that detail). Is this a useful definition? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To me, a general-purpose computer is not just one that can be used for many things, but in principle can by used for any thing for which it has sufficient memory. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, here are some online definitions:

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the term probably came in use in the 1960s (1950s) where certain digital computer models were optimised for scientific number crunching and others were more optimised for business transactions .... see IBM 7090, CDC 6600 vs IBM 1400 for example. The IBM 360 was a general purpose design to cover both.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking through books, trying to find a definition. This is from a classic textbook, Computers: Appreciation, Applications, Implications - an Introduction, by J. Mack Adams and Douglas Haden, Wiley, 1973, p. 6:

Digital computers can be further divided into two classes: special-purpose and general-purpose. A general-purpose computer is really quite like the SMD [Symbol Manipulation Device]: a very flexible symbol manipulator. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer that is always used the same manipulations or class of manipulations (i.e. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer with the program built in or with at least most of the program built in). An example of a a special-purpose digital computer is a missile-guidance computer: it has a very specific task for which it is designed and is not expected to be able to run a payroll program, for instance, in addition to its designed task...

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that you have nailed it. I think we can remove the Turing machine claim, and any claims based upon what it was originally designed to do as opposed to what it is capable of doing.

As I read your sources, I changed my mind about something. The microcontroller in my keyboard is a special purpose computer, even though it is an ARM Cortex-M and the ARM Cortex-M is a general-purpose computer. I realized that context is everything. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:RTL/2

This draft was developed by a user who is no longer active, but appears on first glance to be appropriate for evaluation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I think there is an existing article of the same name ... just to cause complications. This draft might be more appropriate for Wikibooks...Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There was an article already, based on the same draft. The presence of the slash in the title confuses the macros, so that I didn't know that there was an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

New multiplication algorithm

Here is a new multiplication algorithm. Does it need an article, or be mentioned in an article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SGI Origin 2000

Could a section on 'currently working' machines be added as it only describes decommissioned machines - For example the 64 CPU machine based at the Centre For Computing History in Cambridge?

James 14/04/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha0124 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not? If you have a good reliable source to back up this claim, feel free to add this to the article. However, I would not create a new section (putting short note at the end of the models section should be sufficient). There is also question of due weight of such information, but this kind of computer is not a device everyone has in their house. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Phoenix Labs article

As recommended by user:Michael Bednarek in the article's talk page, I suggest to merge Phoenix Labs, an inactive, former software development company into PeerGuardian, the company's software. As is disclosed on my user profile, I am an employee of Phoenix Labs - a separate company with the same name that is active and operating. Once merged, the article Phoenix Labs could - with the appropriate hatnote - be repurposed for Phoenix Labs the active game developer.

Current Phoenix Labs article has no references to reliable sources, so there is possibility of deletion anyway. There are several solutions:

1) Move to eg. "Phoenix Labs (software company)" and then redirect to "PeerGuardian". "Phoenix Labs" name will be then free for another use (page usurpation) without losing or mixing article edit history. Well, there may be problems with links to the original page changed to redirect. Certainly not the easy way.

2) Deleting the original article (eg. via WP:PROD) and using the now free name for your article (with hat note to the PeerGuardian article).

3) Using another name for your article (eg. Phoenix Labs (video game developer)). Cheap and easy.

However, as you have conflict of interest, you should publish the new article via WP:AfC. Note notability requirements for companies are much higher than for eg. video games, really good sources are needed to keep such an article. Pavlor (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with Citrix Systems

Hi there! Wondering if anyone from this project can offer some thoughts on a question I posed at the Citrix Systems Talk page: Would editors support simplifying the current Products section to a much more straightforward and short statement of the company's major offerings? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Amiga has been nominated for deletion

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amiga. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Coffee Lake/G5400, G5500, G5600?

Under the parent "Pentium-branded processors" section, the last apparent listing for the most-recent Pentium generation ends at Kaby Lake. No mention of Coffee Lake Pentiums except as an aside within the header information. In fact, the G5400, G5500, and G5600 series Pentiums aren't even listed once in the entire article. The new Gold G5xxx and G5xxxT processors should be included. Rhombuth (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Outlook

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Software seem to be moribund I am posting here. Can anyone who is familiar with the various platforms/services of Microsoft Outlook please comment at the RM discussion on Talk:Outlook on the web? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Input on changes to Template:TRS-80 and Tandy computers

If possible, I'd appreciate some brief input from interested parties here into the discussion at Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers. It's regarding the merits of the changes to the template with respect to its usability and the interpretation of our policies. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of SitePoint on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of SitePoint on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § SitePoint for Grav (CMS). — Newslinger talk 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Xconomy and HealthLeaders on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible WP:Coatrack issue at Data erasure

The Data erasure page seems loaded with off-topic content. Please consider having a look at the discussion I started over there. — soupvector (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms of TimBL

I raised a concern and a proposal at Tim Berners-Lee#Criticisms because I felt the W3C's EME(/DRM?) proposal was becoming too much of a soapbox with undue weight on that WP:BLP page. I'd appreciate neutral eye's of good standing to have a look. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request 29-MAY-2019

There is currently an edit request from an editor with a conflict of interest pending in the Gray code article which requires a math background, in particular, a knowledge of the reflected binary code used in that numeral system. Any editors who might be able to review this request would be most appreciated. Spintendo 01:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of The Next Web on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of The Next Web on the reliable source noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Next Web for ProProfs. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that HTML, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X3D

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Nomination of List of ACM-W chapters for deletion

Nomination of List of ACM-W Celebrations for deletion

Nomination of Portal:Computer graphics for deletion

your network architect

Kirshenbaum‎

Split proposal for Athlon

Retention of VPN Products

There are at least of couple of VPN Products/providers up for AfD currently (and I'm aware of a few other article out there). This can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship an which ones work in China etc. We have a at least a couple going through AfD currently and I'd like a project viewpoint on where we would like to stand on this from an efficiency point of view. I'm not really interested in playing tiddlewinks with how RS a review is and who is WP:PAID the brown envelops behind the scene . I want them batched out if necessary if that's what the community wants. Currently at AfD are:

I may get round to pinging people at some point: Criteria might want to consider are:

Sustained presence
Size
Do they work in certain regions or are the only ones permitted in a region ... e.g. China
Security concerns.
Popular for whatever reason in a particular area

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat bad idea. These criteria are arbitrary, subjective and against the very core tenets of Wikipedia. WP:N and WP:RS are the "rules" we should follow. We may discuss degree of coverage needed for a VPN service to establish notability, but not inventing our own hard to judge rules. Pavlor (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a proposal of that shape is not going to mesh with existing notability criteria. The applicable guidance we have in this area is WP:NPRODUCT. It's fairly simple in practice: if we can find a couple reviews published by WP:RELIABLE sources, we can keep it. We try to stay out of issues like "can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship" because that's an even weirder game of tiddlywinks. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

At best you can write an WP:ESSAY, but even that may be a bad idea. There is nothing unique about VPNs that require us to consider them differently from other software from an inclusion standpoint. feminist (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

... OK .. so where do people stand on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullvad ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of TorrentFreak on the reliable sources noticeboard

Discussion on Maxit (maxit.my) on the reliable sources noticeboard

AVG Technologies COI edit request

Should Plasma Mobile be mentioned at Nexus 5X?

Nomination of Portal:Software for deletion

Retro-Computing Society of Rhode Island?

Third opinion needed at Arbitrary-precision arithmetic

Noticeboard discussion of Hacker Noon and InfoSec Handbook

Nomination of Portal:Microsoft for deletion

Nomination of Silk Test for deletion

Can anyone improve E-text?

Computing???

External links update

Request for comment on reliability of Liliputing (liliputing.com)

Articles with links to DAB pages

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Network Kanji Filter

Apple Inc. litigation

Assistive Intelligence and Technologies

Talk:Open Configuration and Management Layer#Is this topic notable?

Folding@home FAR

Nomination of SunPCi for deletion

Category:Mobile/desktop convergence

RFC on Internet Society

Universal Business Language

Golog Programming language

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Request for review: HTML element

Edit conflict in Draft:OpenVINO

A while ago, a new draft was created about a software for realizing neural networks with the Intel compute stick. The software is mentioned in Google Scholar by independent sources and it's about Artificial Intelligence, so it's for sure that the article is needed in Wikipedia. I think the draft in the current form has some serious issues, but the article can be improved by adding valuable sources. Unfortunately, my edit in the draft section was made undo Special:Diff/937360430.

The question is what will happen next? One option is to wait for the review which is happen in 3 month. They will come to the same conclusion like the last time, that the article has a low quality and isn't moved into the main section. The other option is, that a high ranking admin will take action and improve the article by putting my edit back into the article. Or the third option is, that my edit was wrong and the draft get accepted in 3 months as a valuable article.

My experience with Wikipedia is too low to provide a probability matrix for the next events, but it was a pleasure to write about the issue here at the talk page and I'd like to say hello to the Wikiproject computing. Manuel --ManuelRodriguez (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The draft is far from mainspace ready and your contribution had some issues ... I'm a lowly scruff not a high ranking admin but I've viewed that article previously and *might* take a gander at it in a couple of days ... if I've done nothing in a couple of days give me a ping. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We could use some help reducing the backlog at WP:WPAFC. You don't need to be high-ranking to join this project, you just need to have been an editor for 90 days and have 500 edits and familiarize yourself with the process and policy. Leave a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants if you want to join. The policy, in a nutshell, is to accept drafts that are unlikely to be deleted at WP:AFD. This draft appears to meet this criterion so I have accepted it. As to ManuelRodriguez's contributions, that can be handled with WP:BRD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on a Minor Page

RFC(?) on "Free S/MIME certificate issuers" in S/MIME article

FAR for Macintosh Classic

Articles with links to DAB pages

Help with drafts from an edit-a-thon

Hello everyone, one of my Wiki-friends has recently organised on edit-a-thon in India, focusing on cyber-related topics. It was conducted in an educational organisations, and students have created a few drafts which need to be reviewed before moving to the mainspace. These drafts are;

Draft:Dynamic Digital Visuals
Draft:Telecommunication and Information Gathering
Draft:Static Digital Visuals-Photos
Draft:Facebook Security
Draft:Google Search(Methods)
Draft:Google Information Gathering Techniques
Draft:Google products
Draft:Online Threats
Draft:Windows Security
Draft:Wireless network security
Draft:Android Securitry
Draft:MacOS Security
Draft:Payment card security
Draft:Monitoring Tools and their detection
Draft:Password Security
Draft:Child Cyber Saftey
Draft:Software Security
Draft:How to report a Cyber Crime
Draft:Incident Response and Recovery
Draft:Cyber Threats
Draft:Hacking(Act)

It would be great to know which of these articles are notable in the first place, even if not ready to be moved to mainspace immediately. In that case, any suggestions for improvement would be of great help. Lastly, if an article is not article, suggestions about adding the content to existing articles or any if don't belong here at all -- an opinion in this regard will be of help. Thanks in advance, KCVelaga (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to state that this is information on safety against cybercrimes, if not mainspace, can we consider moving this to the simple wiki?

Regards

-Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

By words of an AfC template: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." I fear most of the above drafts are unsuitable as articles for an encyclopedia. There are already articles covering some topics (eg. hacking), maybe best course of action would be to find existing articles and marge useable parts from these drafts to them, so not all work is lost. Pavlor (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A role model for newbies to become familiar with the editing process in Wikipedia is a wikiproject. In the concrete case of computer security, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_Security is the correct starting point. What the users in this project are doing is to create article requests, fulfill article wishes and extend existing content. The recommendation is to read through the documentation, monitor what the existing members in the project are doing and then imitate their behavior.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there was a lot of work put into these drafts. I would hesitate to make a blanket assessment of them but I agree that there seems to be a systemic WP:ESSAY issue. That isn't necessarily an insurmountable problem. If the topic is notable and not covered elsewhere, a flawed draft can still be accepted and improved over time in mainspace. It looks like Draft:Incident Response and Recovery is the only draft actually submitted for review. There is no problem submitting the others to WP:AFC and see what further feedback you get there. I am an AFC reviewer and could help process these. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of optimization software

Dimensionality v. Cardinality

Dubious mass edits from an IP

Matting and image segmentation

Cortana reassessment

Culture of Silicon Valley

IP over Avian Carriers

Edit pane

Standard Article Structure Proposal

Deep learning super sampling

Should "Paned window" be renamed?

Request to update Watson (computer) article

ZFS

Unicode chart templates

New high level quantum computer language SILQ

Internet Society

Category:Binary logic

Help resolving duplicate article issue

Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits

Elecom discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospace

Use of Watson (computer) at Bambino Gesù Hospital

Articles for deletion

Members of this project might be interested in this deletion discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Codepage deletions/transwikificaion

This deletion discussion affects a large number of EBCDIC code pages in bulk. There is possibly a consideration to transition them to e.g. WikiBooks. This also sets a possible precedent for a number of other codepages, so the result may be imnportant in that respect. If transwikification occurs there may be need for assistance in the process possibly with some scripting involved. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Plan

If anyone is aware of a plan and instructions applicable for migrating something like a set of codepages to wikibooks then please share them here. Because of number of pages involved automation or perhaps semi-automation or tool-assist is probably advisable. For the case of codepages should a Transwikification consensus be reached (and its a pain in the butt if it is) a fag-packet plan A might be:

Identifify the~~set~~sets of codepages to be transferred to e.g. WikiBooks. (A set might be EBCDIC, Microsoft?, HP? ...)
Determine a WikiBook style/design.
Review set for commonsense (in case of a split of some to be transferred and some not)
For each set of CodePages to be Transwikified (e.g. EBCDIC)

Indentify any dependent templates and resolve how to handle any discrepencies on wikibooks.

This might e.g. require transwikifying those templates first.
This might involve modifying the page prior to export via a temporary location to expand/reformat a template

Import code pages to transwiki import area on Wikibooks.
Create a Wikibook: (Likely a combined main and contents index)
Move pages to subpage of the Wikibook.
Test and checkout Wikibook for consistency.
When Wikibook and subpages curated and showing in search engines compare against WikiPedia for successful and complete transfer
Remove pages from Wikipedia replacing with soft links to WikiBooks where necessary

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)]]

Transwiki references

Some References:Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:TRANSWIKI (Historical) (But see :WP:RBI also)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki (This is defunct)
Wikibooks:WB:RFI
Specific version of WikiBooks:RFI

Improvements to TomTom article

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

Draft:Aspose.BarCode

Cleanup of List of filename extensions

A new-ish computer-graphics sense of "mura"

EBCDIC transwiki to WikiBooks

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<br/>
::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

@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 (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?

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:

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.
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.
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)

Confusing overlap between VLSI Project and Mead & Conway revolution

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

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 . 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?

Zero trust networks

Internet Society History

Nomination of InnerSloth for deletion

"Internet" vs. "internet"

Move discussion at C18 (C standard revision)

FAR of Rosetta@home

Inconsistencies in Jeff Bezos

Articles that needs improvement

HomeBank

Can someone please review this article for creation?

Rational Software edit war

Citrix Systems request

Convolutional neural networks are not of low importance.

Improbability factor

Should Purple Numbers be freestanding or part of Douglas Engelbart biography?

Power Mac G4 Cube at peer review

February Online Edit-a-thon

ScanIP

Help on carbon credit-related software and tools lists

F9 Financial Reporting

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Want some new articles to edit! Have spare time!

FAR of Acid2

Help with article about technology company

Fanless computers

Mary Ann Mansigh

Looking for help and or advice for editing an article about Keyboard Computers

Article on tech as a business sector?

FAR of Delrina

Proposed deletion of DHTMLEdit

JSON Meta Application Protocol improvements

Splitting discussion for TYPO3

FA review for NeXT

8-bit computing (and 16-bit computing)

Requested move at Talk:E-book#Requested move 16 April 2021

Changes to Windows articles

Category:Science articles needing expert attention

IPad Pro (5th generation)

Category:Information technology articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Requested move at Talk:Features new to Windows XP#Requested move 11 August 2021

History of IBM magnetic disk drives listed at Requested moves

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject

Out-of-order execution and Scoreboarding pages

OnlyFans request

permute instruction

bitmanip instruction sets page false and misleading

Vector processing

Given that i am currently developing a Vector processor, with the knowledge on Cray and others being in my "working set" i thought i'd document some of it, add references, update the assembly examples, add a list of features and definitely clarify the mistaken assumption and confusion "SIMD != Vector" which, sigh, keeps coming up. An independent read/review would be appreciated at some point, please bear in mind i work incrementally, usually adding sentences, saving so it is not lost, then tracking down references and adding them. page Vector processing Lkcl (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ok found quite a lot of references, some of them fascinating, like the original 1977 cray-1 hardware manual, i mean, wow. i think though, really, the article could have an "importance" category added, now, which i will recommend as "top" due to the strategic and historic value as well as the power savings over SIMD. i mean, come on, we're talking *Cray-I supercomputer* here :) Lkcl (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

found out how to request review, started one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Vector_processor/archive1 Lkcl (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lkcl: Primary sources such as the cray-1 hardware manual need to be used carefully. See WP:PSTS. Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry breaking up the paragraph here, putting this reply in at the context point, i note " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access t"

given that this is a 55 year old Technical Manual where historically we're lucky to even have access to it at all, given that Cray now only exists in the form of a shell of its former self (sold to Hewlett Packard) i think it's ok to use. i mean, this was like an iconic extremely exclusive system, heavily restricted access. it's not like today's computers where you can buy an arduino for $1.50! Lkcl (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

another thing: it's a Technical Reference ISA Manual. getting something, even the slightest detail, factually wrong, would have been catastrophic. programs simply would not work, rendering their multimillion dollar hardware useless. like saying "5 is the same number as 2", math doesn't work. publishing false facts like that would have been catastrophic for Cray's reputation. overall i'd say ISA Specifications like this (of notable ISAs), which contain "lists of facts" (interestingly, which are therefore not Copyrightable), should be an exception. Lkcl (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would give a Mid importance rating for this topic. High is for popular and general topics. Top is for essential technology. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Importance. Vector processing was an important step leading us to where we are today but my understanding is that current applications are niche. ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

hi Kvng thanks for chipping in here. Vector processing capability is the basis of every GPU on the planet, in every smartphone. Vector processing is also in Intel AVX512 and in ARM SVE2. the number of processors on this planet with Vector processing capability literally measures in the billions. i would not be recommending "Top" lightly and without good reason. Lkcl (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lkcl, your vector processor basis is not supported by the current contents of Graphics processing unit. The only mention there goes the other way, actually - GPUs used to perform vector processor functions in niche applications. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

urrr not another one. i haven't got round to that one. i just updated Flynn's Taxonomy and the SIMD page, to reflect actually what's in Flynn's 1972 IEEE paper (really grateful to guy harris for finding that one). that's really why all these inter-related pages are such a mess: no mention at the fundamental level (the taxonomy), so they all have the same misinformation. it also doesn't help that the language has changed in the past 56 years. sigh. ok i'll take a look and get to it when i can. i have most of the references in my head now. Lkcl (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ok i did a quick bit full skimthrough and apart from one grammatical error my opinion is that the page is very good: informative about the history, contains relevant references to APIs (now that i think about it though i didn't see prominent mention of Khronos Group, Vulkan or OpenCL, it did mention CUDA though). there is a complete lack of detail on the *internals* of GPUs though. this is hardly surprising since these are paranoid companies with trigger-happy patent lawyers. oh i did find a Carnegie Mellon academic coursework slide deck that is *really* good, and has the diagrams necessary to demonstrate a direct correspondance with Flynn's taxonomy, showing that modern GPU === SIMT. it'son the Vector Processor page "external links", i haven't got round to doing anything more with it yet.

summary, then: the page on GPUs is at a broad informative level extremely good, and i'm not sure it helps to start editing it or move some of the technical "inner workings" to it that are currently in the VP page. it's... complicated, basically. Lkcl (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ok yep found / noticed the list of APIs, wow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#APIs hm Vulkan could be more prominent, in the history section, but it's ok. i did add a link to the GPU internals section. this is about as far as i think it should go, really. beyond that it interrupts the flow of what is otherwise a really good page.

to answer your question (concern) directly, unfortunately you have to jump through some hoops. first examine Flynn's 1972 paper, then compare it against the Carnegie coursework slides. then look at MIAOW (by the Vertical Research Group)for confirmation, and finally if your brain hasn't exploded or lost the thread it's possible to deduce the answer. with these billion dollar companies being paranoidly secretive it's about the best that can be done. Lkcl (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry, another thought: look at what the MIAOW team say about what they developed: they say "this is not a GPU". they developed a SIMT Engine, they did *not* develop a GPU. A GPU comes with a ton of trappings: Texture opcodes, pixel formats, PCIe interface, Video HDMI drivers. the actual Vector Processing engine is *one* (rather large, by silicon area) part of that. the GPU page covers all of that, and the history, and blah blah (doing so very well).

now, what it *might* be appropriate to do is, to add a new section "Inside GPUs". however, as the MIAOW team describe in their research, details are pretty sketchy due to the secrecy, paranoia, patents, and the insane amount of money involved (NVIDIA buying ARM for 40 billion). here, things can be mentioned like the not-GPLGPU, Jeff Bush's Nyuzi, Vertical Research Group's MIAOW, ORGFX, and at some point when its 3D features reach notability, the LibreSOC project (which is what i am working on, it is about 1-2 years out from having 3D GPU capability that's notable for wikipedia). Lkcl (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Decommissioned computers

Multi-editor discussion requested for Cloudflare

Jerry Yang COI edit requests

Software Categories page enhancements

Toasternet

Notification of move discussion at Gaming computer

Perl

Please help evaluate a draft at AFC

Requested move at Talk:Telecommuting#Requested move 3 August 2021

Requested move at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Requested move 27 August 2021

Draft:Riak

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Draft:Riak? There is, I believe, already a an existing article about the same subject at Riak; so, a draft for a possible new article isn't really needed. The main contributors to the daft a new/newish accounts who might not realize that they can just try and improve the existing article and don't need to create a new one to replace it. Perhaps there's a way to merge some of the draft's content into the existing article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had a very quick glance at this. It appears to be duplicate of the main article with identical contributions history on the main page and talk page. This isn;twhat I'd technically expect to see. I think the drafts G6 eligible BUT there MAY be a system level error error due to e.g. a failed partial draftication move ( a pure guess). I'd really think a technical level check should be seen (but I may be being stpid and paranoid as I have to be out the house in 10 minutes and I'm still in my pyjamas and I'm very rushed). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Looks like JosephPearl created the draft from a copy of Riak. It was then improved by a couple other editors. It does look like there may be some useful improvements in the draft but it is all a bit suspicious. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Yes that's from me, I created the draph page as I'm quite new to this & wasn't quite sure on the best way to contribute. Would be happy to move it over here. We noticed it was significantly out of date, so were working on updating it all to include recent developmentsJosephPearl (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

JosephPearl, great, before you start, please WP:DISCLOSE any conflict of interest. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi JosephPearl. Thanks for clarifying things a bit. Generally, the draft namespace is for working on new articles for Wikipedia and not for working on improvements to existing articles; it's usually better to do that kind of thing is often in your user sandbox instead. In addition, if there are problems with an existing article, it's usually better to try and fix them whenever possible and preserve as much as possible as opposed to simply trying to re-write an article from start to finish. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and an article might have had quite a number of different contributors over the years; so, newer editors are sort of expected to build upon and improve what they started except in cases where the issues are so serious that fixing them isn't really a viable option. An article is intended to be encyclopedic in nature, which means content isn't necessarily discarded or removed because it's now outdated; instead, it's better to try and find a way to retain the existing content, revised as needed, and incorporate the newer content into the article so that things blend together.

Another thing I noticed from your post is the your use of the words "we" and "were". The way you use them seems to imply a couple of things: (1) you're somehow connected to the company and (2) you're working with others to try and "update" the article. If you're connected to the company in some way, please carefully read through WP:COI and WP:PAID to make sure you understand some very important things about Wikipedia. I also suggest you read through WP:OWN, WP:VNT, and WP:NOT as well. While it's always good for Wikipedia articles to be accurate and up-to-date whenever possible, it's more important for articles to be reliably sourced (particularly with WP:SECONDARY sources) so that any claims or statements made in the article can be reasonably verified. Wikipedia is not really intended to promote a subject and isn't really interested too much in what it has to say about itself because that's the role of the subject's official websites and social media accounts and Wikipedia articles don't "belong" to their subjects; Wikipedia is more interested in secondary reliable sources have been saying and writing about a subject and how to incorporate such things into the article in a neutral manner. If you're connected to the Riak in some way, then it would be better for you to propose changes to the article at Talk:Riak as explained in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement to give other editors a chance to assess them in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you try to plow ahead and do things directly yourself, you might find yourself having problems with other editors and any changes you make being undone for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood. We've added relevent COI to the talk;riak page and will propose changes there.JosephPearl (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at Draft:Mailgun

Proposed merge of Tesla Dojo

FORCEDENTRY

Articles in Category:Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Groups

Sisense: Request for review

lpq

Rename of Category:Floating point types

Nvidia GTC

Re-cating lots of CPU articles

NEC N5200 and APC series

Proposed deletion of Finite-state machine with datapath

What's the proper title for this article?

Hardware for artificial intelligence

Looking for help on Sisense page

Network Load Balancing Services

Socket G2 and G2

New article

Forced and experimenting and analysis that is embedded

I never asked for my site and platform to be part of all of this. Im not even sure how it started. I know that it is not what the you all claim the process if gathering data throgh experience and experiment. I spend m9st of my time trying to figure out a way to get some of my fundemental rights back What the problem is you are not looking between the lines. I get that it for technology and building a better infustrutue . I understand that it used to educate the world about security and for eveyone to have internet availability. The protocol runs short. EMBBEDED PLATFORMS ARE NOT BASED ON American freedoms. It a form of Modern day technological slavery. Its is the freedom of our country to have a choice and that is not what is happening here. If that where true why is it emmbeded. Why are there tags and identifying locks. In my case there is no way that i can modify any of the appl8cations 9r certificate or licenses that are on every divice that i own . It wiuld not require wifi finders and repo and code writing timeout and inhuman taticics. I did not agree to be researched on . I did not agree to have my entire life tracked and used by the world . The programer and the w3.org and ianna and ieft dint see the real data . The price i have paid so that the Android systems can be built . THE USER IS FORGOTEN ABOUT . I SEE THAT. you all think you are corosponding with me but you are not. It 8s the programer that is responding as it where me . They have complete control . The control starts with puting licences that can not be modified. Instal8ng open source that can not be modified. Own the domain right and the third party rights.run the enterprise and the organization . Have all the major player running marketing and analytical databases and take over 5he emails and prtend that they are non existing anymore they are active to the administration and secretly still functioning and running in the background. I dont sit on the board i dont get to make any desions . It is all keep under rap and lock and key. It the modernization of technology slavery. Evette anderson. 11/29/2021 131.93.173.57 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help on Sisense page

Forks of compression topics? Any mergers possible?

Software vs. Computer Science

Proposed deletion of History of Dell

Article Reboot seriously in need of a refresh

Rewrite need at vector processor

The vector processor article has numerous problems that I believe can only be fixed by a rewrite. I've outlined some of them at Talk:Vector processor#This article needs to be rewritten. Further review of the vector processor article would be appreciated. HTW217 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was recently reworked by Lkcl. The rewrite you're looking for may be an older version. ~Kvng (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

My concerns pertain to the current version. Consider the following text from Vector processor#Vector instructions:

The vector pseudocode example above comes with a big assumption that the vector computer can process more than ten numbers in one batch. For a greater quantity of numbers in the vector register, it becomes unfeasible for the computer to have a register that large. As a result, the vector processor either gains the ability to perform loops itself, or exposes some sort of vector control (status) register to the programmer, usually known as a vector Length.

The claim that it is a "big assumption" for a vector computer to process ten or more numbers in one batch is problematic. Firstly, what exactly does "processing" mean? What does "one batch" mean? This is not precise language, nor does it use accepted terminology. I think the intended point is "can a vector computer perform ten operations (say, floating-point additions) per clock cycle", or perhaps, "can a vector computer initiate ten floating-point additions per cycle". If this is indeed the case, then the claim is a falsity. Vector computers have no issue with performing many tens of operations concurrently. As an example, each core in the SX-Aurora can perform 192 FLOPS per cycle.

Secondly, the two solutions that are claimed to be a solution for the non-existent problem of limited parallelism in vector computers is meaningless. Vector architectures (generally) do not have a conception of a loop. While it's correct to say that a vector instruction replaces an equivalent scalar loop, this is an intrinsic property of the vector instruction concept; it's not something tacked onto vector instructions, as the text presently states.

Thirdly, the vector length mechanism is not used to overcome the non-existent lack-of-parallelism limitation, as is claimed by the article. It simply exists to handle cases where the length of the vector in the application is shorter than the "natural" vector length of the architecture.

Fourth, the claim that it is unfeasible for vector registers to have more than ten numbers is patently false. The first vector computer with vector registers, the CRAY-1, had 8 registers, each containing 64 elements of 64 bits each. Others have a greater number of registers, each containing a greater number of elements. The present SX-Aurora, for example, has 64 registers, each containing 64 elements of 64 bits each. It also implements register renaming, so its physical register file contains 256 registers.

So what's the solution? Have a clear separation between architecture and organizational issues. Describe how vector architectures support application requirements. In this instance, what a vector instruction is, what scalar code does it replace, what is the vector length, what is its purpose, etc. Then discuss the organizational issues, such as how a vector operation is performed by hardware (all elements go through one pipeline; elements are distributed over multiple pipelines [lanes in modern terminology]). HTW217 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I was suggesting you review the article history and see if the problems you identify exist in the version prior to Lkcl's work. If the older version is better, a WP:REVERT may be in order. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this article, and was surprised to find an article that has a strong - and somewhat controversial - view point: The author obviously hates SIMD as part of an ISA - while I agree from a SW point of view that it can be a hassle, in practice it's much less of a problem than what he is claiming. In most signal processing tasks, the structure and size of the data is well known (and intentionally designed), and therefore it's not a problem to match it to a SIMD processor. And most DSPs have well matched memory access (with scatter/gather functionality) to a local "vector memory" that is capable to fully load/store all data in one step. And we're not talking about 64 Bit here, more typical would be 256 - 1024 Bit. Technically, vector processors and SIMD-capable machines are identical HW anyway for the largest part (registers, execution units, ...) - it's just that in vector machines a wrapper layer in microcode or extra hardware handles the stuff that is otherwise done by the programmer/compiler to support variable length data. If that additional handling can be avoided by design, a SIMD setup is more efficient. If that's not possible, a vector solution is better - depends on the use case. BTW: That's absolutely normal in pretty much all digital signal processors - which are more and more common in µCs and SoCs. Synopsis, Cadence, CEVA, TI and others sell many billions (and no, they and their customers are not stupid). That's why I actually think the old article was better (even though it has its own limitations). 194.39.218.10 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but the limitations of SIMD-enhanced scalar processors are well known in the context of large-scale vector processing. This is something that has been demonstrated in countless studies (such as those by Espasa et al.) and is stated in standard computer architecture and organization textbooks (like CA:AQA). The problem isn't that the article is biased against SIMD-enhanced scalar processors; the problem is that its content is completely misinformed about why SIMD-enhanced scalar processors and vector processors exist in the first place. It's missing context. Describing the limitations of SIMD-enhanced scalar processors, and how these limitations are avoided in vector processors, in an objective manner is not bias. However, it needs to be balanced out, because vector processors, while solving the several issues in SIMD-enhanced scalar processors, have several of their own (like context switching performance). The article as it presently stands, with its unencyclopedic, sometimes pedagogical, sometimes editorializing tone, and numerous digressions and general verbosity is problematic.

By the way, your assertion that SIMD machines don't differ much from vector processors is unfortunate. Vector processors are very different from the typical SIMD-enhanced scalar processor at the architecture, organization, and realization levels. The problem is that most people don't have a detailed understanding of vector processors and see them as merely wider SIMD-enhanced scalar processors (which is very incorrect, and ignores the historical evolution of these two embodiments of Flynn's SIMD category). Also, most vector processors aren't microcoded. Some very old examples from the 1970s were, like the CDC STAR-100 and TI ASC. Some of the Japanese vector processors used micro-coded scalar units, because they reused existing System/370 processors.

I'll remove some of more obviously problematic content, but the rewrite will have to wait (indefinitely) or be performed by somebody else. HTW217 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Disambiguation links to Controller (computing) and Network interface

Requested move at Talk:BMDFM#Requested move 13 January 2022

Low-code programming languages

Missing assessment

Reduce Router and Firewall lists

PSA: Overhaul of the WikiProject_Computing member list

IBM redirects

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Server-side rendering and Server-side generation redirects

Proposed split at Talk:Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max#Split again

Proposed deletion of United States of America Computing Olympiad

John V. Roach

Splitting entries from Category:Virtualization software to Category:Virtualization

FLRC for List of Computer Criminals

RfC regarding IP over Avian Carriers image

Requested move at Talk:Comparison of free and open-source software licences#Requested move 28 March 2022

Virtual Threads and Green Threads

Requested move at Talk:IEEE 1394#Requested move 24 March 2022

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Peer review of the History of World Wide Web

Mainframes

User script to detect unreliable sources

CI/CD

Request for article assessement

Requested move at Talk:Redmi 1#Requested move 24 April 2022

Editor Review Assistance - Fortinet Company Page

Truth Social frontend app

Proposing merger of Theme (computing) and Skin (computing)

TechnologyOne COI edit requests

Article on PACX terminal switch

Neos (content management)

User:Tothwolf/AmIRC

Requested move at Talk:USB 3.0#Requested move 13 June 2022

Created a stub for the new HP Dev One

Reliable sources discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003)

Help with Dan Wagner article update

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Request to update HubSpot

Draft:Compaq IA-1 - as a stand-alone article or section in iPAQ (desktop computer)?

Requested move at Talk:Catalyst 6500#Requested move 18 August 2022

Ada and Agda

Requested move at Talk:Zero-day (computing)#Requested move 26 August 2022

K1520 computer bus

used the majority of computers produced in east germany between 1980 and 1990.

many of which have wikipedia pages. (see draft)

how would one establish notability for it? naturally all the technical documentation mentions it. but it is not like the average Hans had any clue that it existed.

Draft: K1520 bus

looking for guidance on the matter Nowakki (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Johannes explains it best at the draft page. You need coverage of the article subject in reliable sources to establish notability. I will look in my library (I have at least few computer-related books and magazines from the former DDR), if there is something useful. Feel free to remind me later. Pavlor (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

but if there is a computer bus (and also an expansion bus) that was featured in all notable microcomputers of one decade in a country that only had one unified semiconductor sector, then that bus must appear in all reliable sources that dealt with these computers and their extension.

tell me, why is the GSC bus notable? Or the VAXBI bus? Nowakki (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That there are badly sourced articles (relict of an age, when gatekeeping was not that strong as today) is not a good argument for another badly sourced article (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As of your draft, in worst case (if we don't find enough sources) that bus could be mentioned in the article about the manufacturer (VEB Robotron) with a redirect as a search term. Pavlor (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

if you would be so kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VEB_Robotron#K1520_bus_standard

it seems wikipedia does not want me to create a redirect without supervision. Nowakki (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

should i make a draft for the redirect? Nowakki (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your account is not autoconfirmed yet (will be in few hours), then you will be able to make a redirect (or any other new page in the main namespace) yourself, just try it again. Do not turn a draft into a redirect. If you are not sure, how to proceed, I can create that redirect for you (see WP:R for help). Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

image licensing based on expected consequences

Requested move at Talk:General Transit Feed Specification#Requested move 21 September 2022

Hitachi Data Systems COI edit requests

Fixed point requested move

Discussion at Talk:Human-in-the-loop § Merger proposal

improve our Random-access memory article

Requested move at Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested move 28 October 2022

Request: Suggestions on how to improve draft of Eclipse Trace Compass

Post-merger issues on LendingClub page

SaaS company seeking assistance

schematics as references

Move request concerning all "version history" articles

Atlas Intelligence Group a international pro hacker group

Requested move at Talk:Printer (computing)#Requested move 17 December 2022

Taskforce WikiProject Unicode – proposal

Hi. I propose to start a WP:Taskforce WikiProject Unicode, as a subproject of both Wikiproject Writing Systems (WSYS) and WikiProject Computing (COMP). The Taskforce be housed here, as a subpage of WP:COMP.

Scope would the topic of Unicode and its related pages & topics; also the points of interface with, for example, scripts, ISO 15924, symbols, computing, fonts; the Wikidata connection; possibly the more hardcore Wiki Interface (Java, CSS) and WP:TemplateStyle.

To do: time to build a Unicode article for TFA :-). Personally as an editor, in templates mostly, I could use a systematic overview of Unicode pages. Also, often I meet questions e.g. re template improvement or articles quality, I want to discuss more widely & thoroughly with engaged editors. I think the Standard could be described better in the articles (tbh, I only understand the workings of the Standard not from articles only, but by doing extra research). It would raise the quality standard. Anyway, we can aim to have more Unicode

FA's.

Activity: I don't expect an overly active WProject (few are these days), but any Unicode discussion with involved editors is welcome. Currently, they appear in scattered places—while they relate to a wider Unicode issue. Central talk can improve the Unicode article standard.

Resources: A central repository would be welcome. Need a {{WikiProject Unicode}} project banner, quality assessment, Article Alerts.

Members and support: Please indicate below if you are potentially interested as a project member.

First job: The WProject needs a logo! Design can start, see & join the future [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unicode]] for the selection.

-DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal administration

Pinging to invite @1234qwer1234qwer4, Babel, BabelStone, BarrelProof, Bruno Unna, Calidum, DePiep, Dominicmgm, Drmccreedy, M.h.gholamii, Mohmad Abdul sahib, Old Naval Rooftops, Red Slash, Spekkios, Vanisaac, and 力: (Users present at Talk:Unicode). -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami and John Maynard Friedman: invitation, from earlier interest. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Spitzak: -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Notified talk:Unicode, WP:Writing systems. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Possibly overlapping scope topics & projects (unsorted list): ISO 15924 (WP:WSYS); i18n, iw (Wikidata?); Help:Multilingual support, WP:UNICODE, Wiki Interface (Java, CSS), WP:TemplateStyle.

Support & membership

Support & member as initator. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Support & member though maybe not the most active. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Support & member I have some ideas about templates and bots for facilitating maintenance. Van Isaac, LLE^cont_WpWS 18:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Thoughts? DePiep (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe outside the scope of your proposal, but our lists of code points and associated images are duplicated in multiple other wikipedias and 30 wiktionaries. They're mostly all identical to one other, except for the names of the blocks sometimes being translated. Someone objected that rather than spending the time updating them all whenever unicode updates or someone adds images, they should be centralized at wikidata and transcluded, but I haven't seen any movement since. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth pursuing. A central wikipoint of contact at enwiki would surely help then. Some work on Wikidata is in progress. DePiep (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but I don't have any desire to administer or lead the project. I'm sure I'll participate at some level. My sarcastic logo for the project would, of course, be U+FFFD � REPLACEMENT CHARACTER. I like the idea of using the same data across multiple Wikipedias. I've tried to do that with the multilingual roadmap image. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Most lax way would be to have the WProject talkpage on your watchlist, then cpoints of interest will roll by. We should make i18n & iw part of scope then; another wiki-interface interface. Request granted, you won't be appointed Chancellor of the Task. (As for the logo: we can make the U+userbox accept ones favourite character. Mine could be an animated diacritic? The Non-breaking spiritual space?) DePiep (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my familiarity with the topic is very limited. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to explicitly add to the project scope the maintenance of ISO 15924 as well. Van Isaac, LLE^cont_WpWS 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Some 75% of these ISO scripts are in Unicode, and more are/havebeen researched. To be done by friendly takeover from parent WP Wrinting Systems. Not a prerequisite I assume, so can be an early initiative. DePiep (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)