Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science/Archive 5

message: I'm curious if anyone here has any opinion or comment about the Free Online Dictionary of Computing. It's used as a sole reference in a few articles and I'm growing suspicious of some of the statements. For example I don't think that Peter Landin's ISWIM was the first language to use lazy evaluation.A B Carter (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have an opinion one way or another on FOLDOC. But if you have a reference (like an ISWIM language spec) that contradicts the FOLDOC entry, then I'd say you win. From a quick skim of the Landin paper that FOLDOC refers to, it's not clear to me what evaluation order ISWIM was supposed to use - but the I didn't really study it in depth. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, thanks. Unfortunately the issue is only coming up for me with fairly obscure topics. I stopped pursuing the ISWIM issue because it became increasingly complex (turns out that ISWIM the language specification and the SECD machine Landin describes to implement the language are not entirely consistent with one another). What motivated this request was FOLDOC's statement that the term "Autocoder" originally referred to the system that Alick Glennie wrote for the Manchester Mark I. Like I said obscure stuff.A B Carter (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My personal experience is that the error rate of FOLDOC is significantly higher than that of Wikipedia and that, as with any tertiary source, should preferably not be used to source any claims. —Ruud 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on FOLDOC 

message: I've put the above article at Featured Article Review for its lack of sourcing. You can see the discussion (which I posted last night- sorry for not notifying this WikiProject until now) at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Architecture of Btrieve. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Architecture of Btrieve]] FAR

message: Can anyone give me a general scope of this project? More specifically, which articles should have the WikiProject Computer science template? I can edit the template to allow for subcategorization if that's an issue. I'd like to start assessing some of these articles and adding some templates. Thanks! Adam McCormick 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the scope would be articles related to computer science, computer engineering, software engineering, programming, artificial intelligence, information science, mathematics related to computer science... Out of the scope would be articles on websites (and other non-technical aspects of the Internet), software application (such as Firefox and Windows), computer hardware (iPod), ... —Ruud 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now do I add them directly to the CS category or a subcategory?Adam McCormick 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd subcategorize them into the categories listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science#Categories. —Ruud 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, Thanks again! Adam McCormick 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Quantum computer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum computer FAR 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet shorthand notation seems to be misnamed for what I've always known as "ASCII math notation". Note, there may not be one standard method, but I believe the overall concept is notable for an article, at least in terms of the history of computing. Yea or nay, I think this nomination needs more knowledgeable input. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD nomination 

message: I think the material on Wikipedia related to control flow statements in programming is a bit disorganised, particularly with regard to the topics of loops and conditional statements. In my opinion, there are problems like: an arguably overlong article, links that don't point to the correct sense of a word, articles that are missing appropriate cross-references, and (perhaps because of this) duplicate coverage.
My first proposal to improve matters is to merge Control flow#Choice into conditional statement. If you wish to comment, please discuss that merger at Talk:Control_flow#Merge proposal, not here. After this particular issue has been dealt with (one way or another), I will move on to the other issues I have identified.—greenrd 13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Control Flow cleanup 

message: Please see the discussion and comment there if you wish, not here.—greenrd 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Computer software]] and [[Computer program]] 

message: This section needs to be here as almost none of these have been tagged yet. Please tag them so they are collected into table before removing them again. Thanks ! Adam McCormick 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged them all.  --Ideogram 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, they just aren't in the stat box yet Adam McCormick 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA/GA List removal 

message: I have proposed that (portions of) Embedded System Design in an FPGA should be merged into Embedded system. Please see the discussion at Talk:Embedded system. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously a moot request now that one of the articles has been deleted as a copyvio. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of ''Embedded System Design in an FPGA'' into ''Embedded system'' 

message: The Bresenham's line algorithm article seems to contain a lot of information not about the actual Bresenham algorithm. I'd appreciate it if a few other people could take a look at the article to see if they think the additional (non-Bresenham) content belongs there, and if not, provide some suggestions for where it should go. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bresenham's line algorithm 

message: I have opened a debate on the use of source code and other examples in Wikipedia articles. It seems that many pieces of example source code etc. currently in Wikipedia violate Wikipedia policy, so we need to either clarify or change the situation. Depending on the result of the discussion, this may result in a number of source code examples being summarily removed from computing articles!
Please reply there, not here, if you wish to contribute.—greenrd 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLICY DEBATE: Use of source code and other examples in articles 

message: Hello, I have been working on fixing links to the Operation page, which is a disambiguation page, so links should not go there. I came across a number of computer science articles which used the word 'operation' in a very general way, just referring to 'something a program can do', an example is 'primitive file operations, such as creating a file, deleting a file, reading from a file, and writing to a file'. Now, the operation disambuation page only links to one computer science article, Instruction (computer science), which seems to be a rather more specific meaning. Unfortunately, I already disambiguated some of the links using the word in the general sense to this article with the very specific meaning, but I would like to fix that. However, I don't know where those links should go instead. Can someone here tell me? ssepp(talk) 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion such links of general terms should be removed.  The usage of "operation" in that context does not have a specific Computer science definition, it just means "doing something".  Such general concepts should not be linked.  --Ideogram 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ideogram. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well, Links to words like that are more the realm of Wiktionary anyway Adam McCormick 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that sounds right, thanks for the replies! ssepp(talk) 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation of operation

message: Hi, I just joined, primarily to ask the WikiProject about this proposed "Internet (by country)" WikiProject that I'm trying to get set up. I'm just wondering, though, if it should be a full-fledged wikiproject or just a task force. Thoughts are appreciated.--Toussaint 12:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me there'd be enough articles, and a sufficient focus, to warrant a project if you wanted to set one up. The big question in my mind is whether or not there will be enough people interested in joining such a project to justify the overhead of setting up a project structure. Maybe you could start with a taskforce, see what the interest level looks like, and then decide if it's worth going on to create a full-fledged project. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet WikiProject or Internet task force? 

message: Hey all. I wondered if there were any comments on my merge proposal discussion at Talk:Idempotence regarding my proposal to merge Idempotence (computer science) into Idempotence. My reasoning was that the comp.sci. article seemed only to be giving a couple vaguely computing-related examples and that the main article gave a better (IMHO) and more formal definition of the term. I'd understand if there was at least some subtle difference but reading the two articles it seems that there isn't. If I'm wrong though, perhaps they shouldn't be merged but the comp.sci. article improved. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge proposal. Just adding a section in Idempotence to include the (rather limited) encyclopedic content of the other article seems sufficient. Gimme danger 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idempotence merge 

message: CPU cache has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU cache FAR 

message: The  (as evidenced on Talk:ANDOS) looks very weird inside the . And even without the BannerShell assessment itself spills out of the actual box. Is there any way of making this confirm to every other WikiProject template that keeps the assessment inside the box? AFAIK, a subpage is usually used for the assessment itself. Shinhan 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template duplicates the functionality of  and should not be used.  If you try replacing it you will see  handles being nested just fine.  Also, this particular article should not be part of WikiProject Computer Science; operating systems are applications of computer science and we can't include every obscure operating system.  I have removed the template from the article and will put the template up for deletion.  --Ideogram 21:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment template 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Ideogram 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:WPCompSciAssessment}}]]

message: The biographical article on Carl Hewitt has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in on the nomination at the article's AfD entry. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of [[Carl Hewitt]] 

message: Is there any chance someone could cast an eye over this for anything that's totally factually incorrect. I recently created it, but have no formal higher education to speak of yet and so I may have introduced inaccuracies or complete falsehoods accidentally. TIA. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no functional programming Ph.D. and I just glanced at the article, but the details look fairly accurate (though a bit on the technical side).  I do think the commonly accepted definition might be a "hylomorphism is an expressive recursive pattern", but that could probably be debated as well.  My main recommendation would be to add simpler explanations and definitions for some of the more technical jargon.  I'll take a deeper look at some of the details later and give you more feedback.  SqlPac 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hylomorphism (computer science)]] 

message: ALF (programming language) has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss this nomination at the AfD page. —Viriditas | Talk 11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I've taken the outcome of delete to DRV. John Vandenberg 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been undeleted. SqlPac 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of [[ALF (programming language)]] 

message: Computer vision is perhaps the sub-field of CS that I find most interesting.  However, a random sampling of the articles in :Category:Computer vision shows that a fair number aren't of very good quality; many are rightfully tagged with templates like jargon or context.  Others could use better categorization, simple cleanup, or maybe the addition of example images.
I'd like to help improve these articles, and I'd very much like it if others were interested in joining me.  Would this best be handled by a computer vision task force, under Wikiproject CS?  Or would the creation of a computer vision Wikiproject be necessary?  Any thoughts are appreciated.  --Iknowyourider (t c) 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Computer science is still a small WikiProject, so it would be best to discuss it here on this talk page.  If enough people start participating you start to think about splitting off a task force or another WikiProject.  --Ideogram 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip.  I'll start finding things to do for myself.  I hope it's not too big a deal if I come back later with some more dumb questions.  --Iknowyourider (t c) 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're always happy to have you.  --Ideogram 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have noticed the same problem actually, best of luck to you in working on this area. Maybe I'll join in too.--Konstable 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to try and get some more material into both Graph cuts in computer vision and Mean shift.  I've put up a todo list at Talk:Graph cuts in computer vision.  As for mean shift, it's a rather stubby stub; I've put some sources on Talk:Mean-shift.  Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage of computer vision articles 

message: Non-universality in computation has been nominated for deletion. User:Dhaluza has extended the discussion of this issue to the Village Pump.  --LambiamTalk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-universality in computation]] on AFD 

message: I got this article through random article. I was considering adding it as a Wikiproject Computer Science article but it doesn't have sources and a Google search struggled to find reliable sources for it. I was thinking of adding it to Articles for deletion but thought I would ask the appropriate Wikiproject for views on it. Capitalistroadster 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like advertising/self-promotion to me (especially given the fact that the article includes developer contact info). That kind of thing is not what Wikipedia is intended for. I'd submit it to AfD as promotion of a non-notable (limited Google hits, of which the top one is WP, and the rest look like announcements in forums or newsgroups) product/program. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SimpleORB]]