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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Please add information to this article and edit it as you can. Thank you. --2601:285:101:A67A:88DB:4009:605E:A8E9 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Base64, the first two lines under the frame, and after also clicking on the link MIME content transfer encoding therein, and reading the first line under the heading and the word 'format', presented to me then, I wonder, am I justified in concluding that the consensus has been that the meaning of the technical term Base64, having become obsolete by the replacement of RFC 1341 by RFC 2045, could also be replaced? That the term was vacant for carrying a new meaning? Please DO correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly hope you will.

If we recycle the term in this way, future readers are going to have a hell of a time disambiguating the two. And that is not only going to confound future historians, but every individual of every new generation. Remember that the ontogenesis repeats the filogenesis, and that that goes on after leaving the womb: the newborn human still has to conquer language, etcetera. In school we relive the previous centuries with a bird's eye view.

That is not recycling, that is cannibalism of the worst kind (Chronos'). For the new meaning, definitely a new term should have been coined. – 86.89.133.166 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

An RFC about the {{Infobox software}} is open at Template talk:Infobox software § Should we add a "source code repository" field to the infobox? Participants are welcome.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that other museums have been tagged with the project box so I have added it to the Talk page of the Living Computer Museum. Is there a way to get a reassessment on the article as a whole? I have done extensive edits this summer that I believe to bring it above stub class. I currently work for the museum and do not want to be biased and asses the article. Thanks! MBlairMartin (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone at this project please review and comment on this draft, as to whether it should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It´s empty on normal editing and visual editing doesn´t work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.253.131 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried and it worked for me. I made a simple addition to one of the citations and it showed up. Beware that in the source page, the only content of the reference section is <references /> since the sources should go into the body of the article using citations. If you do not understand the "citation" concept then maybe that is what needs to be reviewed? W Nowicki (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I owned an Atari 520STFM. I used to read ST magazines, ST User IIRC. After the ST, came the Mega ST1 (1MB RAM) and Mega ST2 (2MB RAM). Your pictures of the TT look like those. I can't remember if they used a later Motorola 68K series, but I think that it was just a 68000. One issue of the magazine that read had a big picture of a huge looking machine, which was called the Atari TT, which, it was explained within, had one to several Inmos T800's. The T800 was designed to be parallel, with four external buses, and was the fastest processor in the world when it was launched, giving about 10 MIPS and 1.5 MFLOPS. I have never heard of a machine called an ATW800. Edmund X Exxxz (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention in particular, that under debate is the option of having RFCs automatically-linking the title of such articles in those cases. AKA instead of something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

we could have (with autolinking), something like

• McConnell, J. "Response to RFC 86: Proposal for Network Standard Format for a Graphics Data Stream". RFC 125.

without having to manually set the url to be "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc125". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:CAD#Requested move 31 October 2016 on whether computer-aided design should be the primary topic for CAD and hence redirected there. SpinningSpark 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

Please could members of this project go to Talk:IP forwarding and participate in the discussion there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks! The article All-in-One has been an orphan with no references for 7 years. A quick Google search for the term doesn't turn up much. Is this a common term that merits its own article? If so, any improvements to the article would be much appreciated (bonus points if you can de-orphan it). If not, we can consider taking it to AfD. Thanks a bunch and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(A sentence needs rewriting by someone who's sure of the subject, which I am not. In fact, according to recent (September 2016 to date) contributions to the Talk page, many aspects of the article need rewriting. I've posted a shorter version of this note there, § "Firstly conceived for...".)

The start of the second paragraph of USB § USB mass storage / USB drive is meaningless as written, and hard or impossible for the non-specialist to interpret (underline added):

Firstly conceived and still used today for optical storage devices (CD-RW drives, DVD drives, etc.), several manufacturers offer external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drives.

What was "Firstly conceived for" all that? Not the manufacturers. Not the "external portable USB hard disk drives, or empty enclosures for disk drive". Nor, apparently, the USB interface itself, which, according to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article, was "designed to standardize the connection of [a wide range of] computer peripherals (including keyboards, pointing devices, digital cameras, printers, portable media players, disk drives and network adapters) to personal computers." What, then?

The "obvious" guess is the USB interface: probably obvious to the computer-savvy writer(s) of this article, who already knew that, but not to everybody. I'm somewhat computer-literate and that's just my best guess. The computer-illiterate could be hopelessly confused. An encyclopedia, and especially a basic-level article like this one, is meant to help any reader, not just those who don't need its help. --Thnidu (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've recently checked into the list of WikiProject Computing/Members.

Could this list be improved by stating which members are currently active or inactive or haven't made a contribution in quite some time.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the list could be improved. I have no objection to improving the membership list. Is there something larger to be achieved by having an improved list? ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will help give a more accurate picture on current users and help allow for better collaboration for article improvements.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the LG G series, e.g. LG G Pad 10.1, mostly seem not to have been updated since 2014, despite the level of detail and focus many of this project's editors devote to mobile device coverage. Consequently, the G Pad 10.1 article, for example, does not cover the G Pad II and G Pad X versions of the device. While, in theory, they could have their own articles, per WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SUMMARY there is insufficient material to warrant a split into multiple articles. We should just create separate sections for the later versions. Given the near-identical specs of the II and X, a single second infobox will suffice for both. Similar updates will also be needed at some other LG G series articles.

I thought of attempting this myself, but much of the detailed mobile device jargon is just gibberish to me, so unless I found really good specs on the devices and copy-pasted details I'm not sure I would get it right. Some of the "usual suspect" sources like GSMarena.com are missing information on some of these devices, e.g. the G Pad X 10.1 (it does have info on the G Pad II 10.1, however). I'm not certain it's not a WP:UGC site anyway; there may be more reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not independently notable, and Wikipedia is not a product guide. So either merge them into the G series article, or else delete them. W Nowicki (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]