Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computing and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:COMP

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 3 months

WikiProject Computing was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 12 June 2013.

Template:JavaScript and Template:ECMAScript merge proposal

There was an unofficial merge proposal that did not reach consensus or take action. Bumping here. Tule-hog (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timing failure

Pease help turn this into an article. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a WP:DICDEF. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:F580:F286:F4EA:C589 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Application analyst

Here is another stub, unsourced for 15 years. Please help to source this. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-configuration

Here's another stub for you and your Project to source! Bearian (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus stub is rated as less important, but seems like it should be rated higher. It's been unsourced for 15 years, part of a backlog of similar things. Can someone please source this? Bearian (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Wikiproject:Computer science and Wikiproject:Computing

Can it be done? We can decide either Compsci or Computing is a better term. The both serve the same purpose. VectorVoyager (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It'd counter propose renaming WP Computing to WP Information Technology, for better differentiation. fgnievinski (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more "verbose" from an utilitarian point of view? Project name being shorter and easier is better for people to find it out and understand what it is. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we need to further differentiate rather than uniting the two? Uniting both those wikiprojects under a simple title would be better. We would be bigger and better organized, like other big wikiprojects. VectorVoyager (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be titled WikiProject "IT", but I don't think smallness is so important. WP CS could be merged into WikiProject Science and WP Computing could be merged into WikiProject Technology, but I don't think fewer projects is necessarily better, either. What we actually need is for wikiprojects to be titled consistently with the Wikipedia articles they are named after. If you check Computing, its scope is much narrower than that of WP Computing. fgnievinski (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point but computer science and computing are more or less the same thing. And both of them, despite being ultra important, are loosely organized and not much active. I wanna organize one, but having those 2 makes it difficult to choose. One gotta merge with the other. VectorVoyager (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Scope and Goals and computer science is, indeed, already included in WP Computing. So, I'd be in favor of making WP CS a task force of WP Computing. fgnievinski (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of computing-related wikiprojects already under Computing's unbrella to some extent or another: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security, Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force. Computing serves as a critical mass for work in these areas. I don't think any merging or systemic reorganization is necessary. It might be a good idea to write or improve scope statements for each of these projects or task forces. ~Kvng (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any WikiProject which becomes dormant is subject to be demoted into a task force of an active WikiProject. fgnievinski (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Hmmm, but those ones specialize on those topics, whereas both Computing and Computer Science have umbrella scopes that include them. VectorVoyager (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VectorVoyager you may be correct in that observation. I'm not going to blanket oppose any specific reorganization proposal. I think the current organization is good enough and I don't see adjustments making an improvement in how we conduct our work. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is HTML a programming language?

Re recent deletions at programming language and discussion at User talk:Theaceofthespade#Computer science. More eyes appreciated, as this is going nowhere otherwise. @Theaceofthespade: Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would love more eyes on this as well, but there is a much larger discussion, and this is not actually some petty thing about whether or not HTML is a programming language - it's about whether or not the article should discuss the perspectives that do/don't see it that way due to the differences between formal and informal definitions.

If you're interested in this topic, please see my proposal here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Programming_language#Definitions_Section

in regard to a more complete explanation behind how I believe this section should be handled. Theaceofthespade (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive coding cleanup

Hi. I was patrolling pages for potential deletion and I came across Adaptive coding. The article is in need of some subject-expert cleanup and needs citations to sources, but it seems to me that the topic warrants an article. I didn't know if it belongs here or at wp:WikiProject Mathematics so I apologize if this is the wrong place, but it would be great if anyone is able to help save the article. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actor model and process calculus

I've come across Category:Actor model (computer science), which appears to have significant overlap between its articles, including a few that have been imported to wikibooks. This was raised at Talk:Actor model and process calculi#Merge this article? way back in 2012 but didn't get any attention. I don't know anything about the topic, so I figured someone here might be able to determine what can be done with these. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identification scheme

This could really use TLC. It's been unsourced for 15 years. Please add reliable sources and add more information. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:History of Ruby § Blanking and redirecting

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of Ruby § Blanking and redirecting. Gracen (they/them) 20:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How should we integrate articles about ML models with articles about specific models?

Situation 1: currently, Wikipedia has an article about Large Language Models and a separate list of large language models. But what about reflective models? Should we create a general article about reflection in models along with a separate article listing reflective (reasoning?) models, including details about individual implementations, benchmarks, etc? This solution feels somewhat cumbersome.

Situation 2: there's an article about Intelligent Agents, but does it need a companion list of specific intelligent agents? So far, I've found only the article on the OpenAI Operator, but there seem to be no articles covering agents such as Claude Computer Use and Runner H. I see an article about Manus, but I had to search for it.TheTeslak (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Aakash (tablet)#Requested move 25 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aakash (tablet)#Requested move 25 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rackspace Technology request

Hello editors,

I noticed that the Rackspace Technology article is of "interest" to this Wikiproject, so I wanted to alert editors to two outstanding requests on the Talk page.

The first request is about the company's founding history and the second request is about the company history in the 2000s.

If there are any questions, I will be over on the Talk page of the article. Thanks! Nicholas for Arsenal Group (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Cyberwarfare by China#Requested move 16 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cyberwarfare by China#Requested move 16 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qodo

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Qodo and assess it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Start class ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Microsoft Windows (releases)

Timeline of Microsoft Windows and Timeline of Microsoft Windows releases currently target different articles. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 25#Timeline of Microsoft Windows it has been proposed they should lead to the same place but the discussion needs input. Please contribute your thoughts there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Quantum supremacy#Revisiting move to "Quantum Advantage"

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quantum supremacy#Revisiting move to "Quantum Advantage" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney+ Hotstar#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please beware of Calliper Callip possibly under other names, accounts or IP addresses

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Computer science#Please beware of Calliper Callip possibly under other names, accounts or IP addresses for a discussion of user who expresses the intent to introduce misinformation to technology articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can editors help with Gartner article request?

Hi all, my name is Burcu and I work for Gartner. I've been working with editors to update the Gartner article page. I have two requests posted on the Gartner Talk page that I'm hoping editors here interested in industry history could take a look at. Any feedback would be very much appreciated. BurcuAtGartner (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore 64 sales record claims

Several articles (such as "Home computer" or "Commodore 64") claim that the Commodore 64 is some variation of the "highest-selling computer of all time". This claim seems highly-dubious to me, is almost-certainly outdated, and likely relies on using a definition of "computer" that conveniently excludes any potential counterexamples. While the sales figures of the C64 (estimated at somewhere between twelve-million and seventeen-million units) were no-doubt remarkable for the 1980s, in the decades since computers have become far more prevalent in society so this seems like a claim that is liable to becoming outdated quickly. I can't find any recent sales figures for individual models of the Macintosh, for example, but it would be highly-surprising to me if the M1 Macbook Air had sold fewer than twelve-million units, for example. Even beyond that, there is also the matter of the Playstation 2, which is unquestionably a computer (even if it arguably isn't the same kind of computer as the C64) and sold over 150-million units. To me these claims seem as if they either need to be removed from said articles or better placed into context, although I understand if sourcing is an issue with achieving the latter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one unsupported statement.

Commodore 64 makes a claim based on CNN reporting citing Guinness which is the sort of WP:SECONDARY sourcing we prefer. Here's what Guinness says. I agree that this is either unlikely to still be true or relies on an outdated definition of computer. Not sure where to go from here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Guinness specify "best-selling desktop computer", which at the very least seems more plausible, although I'm still not convinced that these sources aren't outdated, and it seems to me as if any sales record claim is reliant on setting a fairly arbitrary definition regarding what is or isn't eligible. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]