Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

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)

Timing failure

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

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

Bit time

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Qodo

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move at Talk:16-pin 12VHPWR connector#Requested move 18 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:16-pin 12VHPWR connector#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Computer configuration

Would anyone here like to adopt Computer configuration? It is currently a stub, mainly h/w but some s/w (system settings redirects there). Maybe a broad concept article is as much as is needed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Motherboard, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 5 May 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Good article reassessment for Fastra II

Fastra II has been nominated for a 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles June push

Please consider signing up for the June 2025 Unreferenced Articles backlog drive.
This project has over 750 recorded unreferenced article. Help us improve your project by participating and signing up to the June push.

NorthernWinds (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Significance of V (Vlang) and Pony

There's ongoing dispute in edit summaries and a user talk page over adding V (Vlang) and Pony to the lists of implementations in various articles: Hash table, Type aliasing, Snake case, Mixin and more. There are additions to quite short lists, e.g. adding V to the eight implementations in Hash Table[1] or to Java, Javascript, Swift and Fortran 90 as a language using the underscore as a Decimal separator[2], and to quite long ones.[3] Could editors discuss here whether V and Pony are significant enough to be mentioned in such articles? NebY (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

These are very little known languages with tiny usage shares (significantly less than one percent). Adding content about these languages across Wikipedia is not helpful to the readers at all and mainly serves to inappropriately promote these obscure languages. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The "little known" argument looks false, because inclusion can be for academic reasons and to provide a diverse spectrum of information or examples for different kinds of languages, and it can be said that Pony falls under this umbrella. Particularly because of numerous academic papers on it and the famous computer scientists involved. Even under the argument that a language "must" be as generally popular as those listed on the articles in question, V arguably meets that criteria. Being ranked above various languages on TIOBE or above them in popularity lists for GitHub (top 10 in the year to year).

V is around as or more popular than Nim, Zig, D, Ocaml, Haxe, Racket, and Elixir. Languages that were included in the articles, In fact, no reverts, protests, or bans were pursued or applied involving those other mentioned languages. No arguments as to their significance, suitability, or questions about how well known they are were aggressively pursued or asked.

Furthermore, the sudden introduction of new special criteria (beyond the standard of notability and having a Wikipedia page) to aggressively block specific programming languages or other editors, gives the appearance of being a diversion to fairness. One in which can hide bias, the creation of de facto ownership for only select editors, or allowing only what is on their personal approved list. True, there is the opposite or various views. But, it can be argued we're given the equivalent result, of a kind of topic wide de facto ban.

If the counter is that is not the case, then logic tells us that such specified criteria should been previously and is applied to all languages, equally and fairly, across all programming related articles and content. An editor who attempted to add "lesser known than the others" languages to what existed, such as Zig or Haxe (it and others are not even on TIOBE), should have been equally scrutinized, reverted, or gotten requests for opinions on them. Not to mention the timeline of when opinions are requested, after already implementing and enforcing abrasive reverts and actions. Wukuendo (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

That someone has not fixed all problems or removed all unduly weighted content across Wikipedia does not mean that they cannot object to your newly added undue content. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Somehow, "lesser" or "as well known" languages such as Nim, Haxe, Zig, D, Ocaml, Elixir... represent peak "dueness", while it just so happens that specifically V and/or Pony do not? That includes ignoring the factual presentation of data from neutral 3rd parties about V's comparable popularity. Even more, upon the discovery of the presence of Pony and V, all other languages on those articles were ignored or deemed acceptable enough not to question. This was allowed for years (and continues to be), until the day Pony or V showed up, and only then was just those specifically handled.

You seem to be doing well arguing with that straw man, but it bears little resemblance to what anyone else has commented. MrOllie (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

(1) This situation was forced by the abrasive implementation of what can be seen as a de facto ban on specific languages and articles. Arguably, few want any part in tangling with that kind of Wikipedia stress or intimidation, nor are they likely to be as concerned about the handling of various programming languages. As I was specifically the recipient of repeated aggressive actions and invited to discuss over here, so I came. (2) It's not a straw man that neutral 3rd party data (TIOBE and GitHub) shows V as verifiably as popular or as well known as languages on the articles in question. (3) The inclusion of notable languages with already existing Wikipedia pages (like Pony), particularly those with significant academic papers and coverage, to give a more diverse spectrum of examples on programming related articles was rarely an issue until being recently made so. Wukuendo (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

We always needs more than the mere existence of a Wikipedia page on someone/thing to justify inclusion elsewhere. We don't list an actor on every page about a film or show they appeared in, every genre writer in an article about that genre, or every destination served in a rail station article. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged; we're looking for content that's significant for that article. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, as does the entire spirit of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (the enumerations in our policies are not exhaustive either).

The existence of other content doesn't establish that any such content can be included; WP:OTHERCONTENT illustrates some such arguments. Often we deal with issues as they arise; that doesn't require fixing all pre-existing issues first. If an article already has too much of something, that's no justification for making it worse.

The TIOBE ranking of V is not a good argument for V's inclusion in articles about Type aliasing or Hash tables; as our TIOBE index says, it is only calculated from the number of search engine results for queries containing the name of the language. As such, it's highly susceptible to spamming and SEO; its only virtue is that it must have been very easy to program but gives TIOBE publicity. Worse, "V" is a peculiar challenge to identify and TIOBE mark its result, as having only 80% confidence (which in hypothesis testing would be worthless).[4] V's score of only 0.19% renders it almost indistinguishable from languages that didn't make the top-50. Pony doesn't feature.

Our Tiobe index article mentions two alternative indices. Neither V or Pony feature in the June 2024 Redmonk rankings[5] or the IEEE Spectrum 2024 rankings.[6]

V was first released in 2019. It remains in beta, now at version 0.4.10. According to its creator, "After 0.4 0.6, we'll be going for 1.0 right away, freezing the syntax, similar to what Go did. So if something has to be changed, now is the time to do it." That was in 2020.[7] According to our article; V was created to develop a desktop messaging client named Volt; nothing else is mentioned.

According to Pony (programming language), after 10 years that's at 0.59.0.

Altogether, there's no sign that either V or Pony's choice of a decimal separator or inclusion of algebraic data types, for example, will be significant to our readers or otherwise worth mentioning. It's not Wikipedia's job to include products in fairness to them, and it's unsurprising that adding V to so many articles raised questions. NebY (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles in question, to which V and/or Pony were added, include:

Algebraic data type, At sign, Bcrypt, Concurrency (computer science), Conditional (computer programming), Decimal separator, Exit (system call), Filter (higher-order function), Foreign function interface, Hash table, Increment and decrement operators, Interface (object-oriented programming), Mixin, Modular programming, NaCl (software), Printf, Project Verona, Range (computer programming), Result type, Self-hosting (compilers), Snake case, Ternary conditional operator and Type aliasing

They were also added to two list articles which begin with explicit "notable programming languages" criteria, List of programming languages and List of programming languages by type

and two which don't show explicit criteria, Generational list of programming languages and List of computing mascots, . NebY (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

(1) The claim that either V or Pony are in an excessive number of articles is arguably false.

Nim, Zig, Red, D, Ocaml, Haxe, Racket, and Elixir are "lesser known" languages included in such articles.

Examples of links to their pages:

• Zig's link count is at 169
• Nim's link count is 267
• Racket's link count is 320
• Elixir's link count is 473

Racket, by the way, is not on TIOBE, Redmonk, or the IEEE lists. This is pointed out, not as knock on any of those languages (as don't support the advocated censoring), but rather there isn't excessive wikilawyering or what some might call shadow tribunals, erected to force shadow bans on editors for mentioning them in programming related articles. The obsessiveness looks reflective of I just don't like it, to force what can be seen or allowed.

(2) Using old rankings

The TIOBE and GitHub rankings are 2025 and current, not years old. They are industry recognized, famous, and neutral. There are critics of them, but there are also critics of Redmonk and IEEE as well. Furthermore, The programming landscape is not static, and more current monthly ratings are reflective of that. Their usage was to show that one of the languages in question, is arguably and comparatively well-known enough in relationship to others in the articles.

(3) "will be significant to our readers or otherwise worth mentioning"

The language being used strikes as strange. No specific editor of Wikipedia can position themselves to declare what readers would find significant or worthwhile to read. That is far too presumptuous.

(4) Wikipedia wide diverting of editors

The article specific discussions among editors, which arguably should be taking place and were how things were done, looked to be rerouted to here. For what can be argued as a kind of shadow tribunal over if Pony or V are allowed to ever be mentioned. That looks at least inappropriate, if not arguably trying to get a shadow tribunal rubber stamp for bullying. It's confusing as to what is actually trying to be accomplished. "These languages have been found guilty of not being significant enough". "Therefore, no mention of them shall ever be allowed again on Wikipedia".

If that is not the case, looks like specifics over inclusion, should be handled at the individual article level. There would be less of the appearance of impropriety directed at a specific language or editor. Wukuendo (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Max (streaming service)#Requested move 24 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Max (streaming service)#Requested move 24 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)