Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

"Internet" vs. "internet"

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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

Move discussion at C18 (C standard revision)

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

FAR of Rosetta@home

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

Inconsistencies in Jeff Bezos

Hello,

I'm a contributor from the French wikipedia, and while working on the french version of Jeff bezos I found something that bothers me: it seems in the Jeff Bezos article that most of the early life section uses "Jeff Bezos: Amazon.com Architect" as a source. However, it seems that this source doesn't have much notoriety, and that some of the information on the article are contradictory with the book "The everything store" from Brad Stone, senior executive editor of global technology at Bloomberg News. Those information differences ranges from age of the mother to the fact that he was in fact not abandoned, which are information of great interest for the article.

I'd like to know what to do with this, this is a labeled article so the information should be reliable, but this doesn't seems to be the case. I think that most of this sections is wrong, at least based on what can only be a more reliable source that what is currently used

Ywats0ns (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles that needs improvement

Hi, I am new here willing to contribute in articles related to computing. What are the articles that need working on?Wziki421 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wziki421:, Here's a list of articles associated with our project that have been assessed as high importance but are rated as just getting started quality wise. ~Kvng (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please review this article for creation?

Hi there! This submission - Draft:Ontotext GraphDB - has been sitting in the Articles for Creation project since December 2019 after being resubmitted. It was originally declined due to COI and tone. The subject is far out of my wheelhouse so I'm hoping someone here can review it, or at least tell me if we should accept or reject it and if the latter, why. Thank you everyone! Missvain (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It was declined. There's just not enough evidence of notability in the article or in the world. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

HomeBank

This needs to be delete or fixed. Please ping me if you go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting enough, current Amiga version is a port from Linux to the X Window enviroment AmiCygnix. I think I can add some references. There is a short 1/2 page article in Amiga Format 113 (August 1998, pp. 47-48) and 1 1/2 page review in Total Amiga 15 (Summer 2003, pp, 39-40) - though I´m not sure about RS status of the later one. There is also a 1 page review of the AmiCygnix version in the Amiga Future 98 (September/October 2012, p. 23) and some short news on amiga-news.de. I expect similar coverage in the Linux related media (eg. this LinuxFormat/TuxRadar piece from 2009: [1] ). I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (probably during this weekend). Pavlor (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Rational Software edit war

Please visit Talk:Rational Software#Edit war to help resolve a question about coverage of Rational Software products. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Convolutional neural networks are not of low importance.

I was highly surprised to see that CNNs are listed as low importance. For comparison, artificial neural network and logistic regression are listed as high importance and differentiable neural computer is listed as mid importance. We do not appear to have a project-specific importance ranking, so using the general definition for Wikipedia we see that a "high importance subject" is defined as "subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." "Mid importance" is defined as "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." I think that CNNs should be at least considered mid importance, as everyone in the world who works in machine learning knows what it is. It definitely doesn't fit the definition of low importance which is "Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article." Stellaathena (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Promoted to Mid importance. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Citrix Systems request

I am looking for editors to review a fairly straightforward request at Talk:Citrix Systems to update the infobox and Operations section on the company's behalf. I originally posted the request in September. Since there has been no response to the request in nearly three months, I wanted to see if WikiProject Computing editors could take a look and update the page if they agree with the suggestions. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Improbability factor

This has been unsourced for 15 years. Let's get rid of it or fix it. Ping me either way, okay? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: There are a lot of brief mentions in sources supporting this. I assume at least some of them are WP:CIRCULAR. Even if they all are, deleting won't fix that at this point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I have asked for deletion review of Purple Numbers (now a redirect).  « Saper // @talk »  21:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Power Mac G4 Cube at peer review

Just letting people know that I've listed Power Mac G4 Cube at peer review. I'd appreciate any comments and input from this wiki project on the article, if you have time. Thanks! Wikipedia:Peer review/Power Mac G4 Cube/archive1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ScanIP

Is it just me, or does this page look like an advertisement?

With the WP:REFBOMB I can't tell if the product is even notable or not.

Anyone familiar enough with that industry to know if the topic is unquestionably notable (or for that matter, unquestionably not notable)?

Am I the only one that sees this as being a bit too promotinal in tone? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, it's being directly, heavily edited by a paid contributor. He's posting updates of what he's done on the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I saw that. He has a pending draft article which "on its face" has similar "looks like an ad, WP:REFBOMB" issues, which is what drew me to this article in the first place. My questions still stand. Does the page look like an ad? Is the topic clearly notable or clearly not notable? I'm considering nominating it for deletion but if it's clearly notable I won't and if it's "neither clearly notable nor not notable" I'll research it more before nominating it for deletion. If I don't nominate it and I'm not the only one that thinks it reads like an ad, I'll put a cleanup template on the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, there are a lot of hits for this in a Scholar search. It appears to be an important research tool so likely notable. I agree that the article is written using (bad) marketing language. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

February Online Edit-a-thon

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021 - Online and global about trade unions and technology ~ Shushugah (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)