Computing Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi all,

I think that the articles APP (file format) and EXE are so similar that they should be merged into a single article, EXE and APP. They're both formats for program files, but on different platforms. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

The Doctahedron.EXE, 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's some work to do but don't support that specific merge. APP (file format) should be converted to a disambiguation list and merged into APP. Its Symbian info box should be merged to SIS (file format). EXE could be merged into Executable and redirected there. – Pnm (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Except for the fact, that they both describe executable file formats, they have really nothing in common, different operating systems, different platforms, completely different formats and calling mechanisms. There's alot of stuff (that is, dozens of pages) that could be added to EXE (and probably will be added eventually) that would be totally out of scope in an APP or a generic Executable article, and vice versa. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average Joe wouldn't know the difference. The distinction between .exe and .app could be discussed within the article. Cheers, The Doctahedron.EXE, 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - the average Joe does not care. The distinction is as obvious as an apple is not an orange.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create a draft here. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better title would be "Comparison of .exe and .app", but I feel that there is not enough information to warrant covering this. However, a link in the See Also sections of the existing articles to each other with the explanation like ".exe, a comparable file format used with Microsoft Windows" would be great.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are specific to different operating systems and differ in details. There is already an article (Executable) about the general concept. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: first, I really strongly oppose the title (if these were synonyms, we should have chosen one of them). Also I see no sense in picking two of formats and joining them. A better way to catch all of them (including a.out, ELF and many more) would be an article "Executable format" (currently a redirect to object file), but I really see no need for such merge. For now I would merge EXE to Portable executable and APP (file format) to APP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Are we ready to remove the tag from that page?
  24.50.159.185 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I Oppose merge. I support R. S. Shaw's suggestion to create an Executable article if there is enough material. I have taken down the merge banners. --Kvng (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree all these articles should be merged with byte--167.30.56.22 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; 167.30.56.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP address on the comment immediately above, appears to be used solely for vandalism. TJRC (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion per WP:SNOW. Conclusion: No merge. History2007 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced instruction set computing needs some help. Not a major rewrite, but touch up, error removal, etc. per talk. I do not have time for it now. Is there some type of "hardware expert" and "software expert" list for this project? History2007 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like after discussion I am going to have to fix it myself. But let me instead nominate Processor register for help. It has a multi-tag on the top and as a basic hardware item should be fixed sooner than later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be kind enough to look at Internet relationship and see if it merits more than a "Start" rating now? A bunch of student have been working on it. Thanks,Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "computer science" article really. History2007 (talk)

Should Organic search engine and Human search engine be merged? Please comment at Talk:Human search engine#Regarding the Merge with article 'orgranic search'. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to comment at Talk:HTTP referer#Reverted move concerning whether the titles and wording of three articles should use "referer" (a misspelling which appears in the specification), or "referrer". There is currently a very minor dispute, but the matter will probably arise again and it would be useful to have wider input (perhaps even an RfC although I haven't bothered with that at this stage). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link broke in the past months, and I was wondering if there is a solution to see a web page of the most recent edits for all "WikiProject Computing" articles?

• Last 200 edits of all WikiProject Computing articles

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In articles about application software, is it desirable to use the word "app", or is "application" preferred? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS the modern sources use nearly exclusively the word "app" when referring to mobile software and "application" for desktop software. As historically the word "app" was mainly a jargon word, I think that sticking with "application" would be a good choice when in doubt. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right to me. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that an app was a particular type of application software. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that it wasn't a binary split between the mobile and desktop but that application software was an overall term for a number of types of software. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed some of the articles in Category:Mobile_software interchange the terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience I agree with Dmitrij: the term "app" is generically used to describe mobile applications (this may have been caused by the emergence of AppStores promoted by mobile device makers like Apple). As part of my work I've done a lot of keyword research, and it seems that the majority of search queries that include "app" are tied to an clear intent to find mobile applications. Therefore I would go for "app" for mobile and "application" for desktop or web application. Of course, these terms will always be used interchangeably but we should try to keep consistence in Wikipedia at least. Mozzello (talk)

Please, help me to expand and improve the article. Thank you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:TOS/360 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stub created to fill a gap is now a couple of messy paragraphs with the long tail of almost random "See also" links. I do not think that it has a perspective as a separate article. But with what to merge it: volatile memory? semiconductor memory? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could easily be a separate article. It just needs work. Peter Flass (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to find a definition of "memory architecture" anywhere. Everyone takes it for granted, and it seems to mean at least two different things. Peter Flass (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an absolutely notable topic that encompasses many concepts such as distributed memory arch, shared memory architecture etc. The obstacle, as usual, is shortage of editors familiar with the concepts to write about it. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellently: Distributed shared memory is another piece of junk. BTW which topic encompasses many concepts such as distributed memory architecture, the article about internal design of memory chips? Words "memory architecture" are ambiguous (cf. memory model), and this topic apparently has to be disambiguated. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's a new wikiproject proposal, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electrical Engineering

70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Mobile email and Wireless email merge into Push email? Please comment at Talk:Push email#Merge discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Quality of modelling languages as to whether this page should be merged and where. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:Nested stack automaton D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a list of articles that need serious help. That may get them some attention and help. I suggest only key articles with multiple tags should be listed blow. History2007 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Firefox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewyy (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Grid computing

Good idea. Our quality statistics can help us find these... --Kvng (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Top importance stub-class articles
• Top importance start-class articles

Hello WikiProject Computing! The Firefox article is really outdated and in need of repair. It would be great if we could put together a team to help maintain it - or at least bring it up to date. Thanks ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox currently has a B rating which is comparatively good. If it is outdated, part of the problem may be that the article appears to contain much more volatile detail than is necessary. The fix here is not to update that info but to edit it out. --Kvng (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evi (software) Any assistance given or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks Jenova20 15:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to previous discussions, I'm taking this overdue discussion to WikiProject Council/Proposals/RISC OS. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Ad_filtering#Is ad filtering legal? - would be nice to have more opinions and more eyes on it. Richiez (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Search engine optimization 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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've opened a peer-review on the Folding@home article. It's already achieved GA status, but I'd like to take it further, maybe even meet FA standards if I can. Comments and suggestions would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]