Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 14

Latest stable software release templates
Many of the templates in Category:Latest stable software release templates were last updated in 2008, 2010, 2011, and so on, and are for abandoned software. I propose those pages be deleted, with their contents moved to the respective article infobox.

This proposal would address a separate problem, which is that most such templates are desperately out of date. If these templates only existed for currently-supported apps, it would make it easier to use Petscan to look for unmaintained/out of date templates (sort by date on Petscan), and to bring them up to date.

Also, since this is WP:COMPUTING, it would be real nice if someone could create a bot that parses the relevant pages, and keeps these templates automatically up to date. It would take far less time to review bot changes than to make these changes ourselves; it would prevent the pages from being too out of date, and it would save us from doing such boring, menial and unimportant work manually. DFlhb (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see how these templates help with maintenance. Seems to be more of a hindrance. Whether updated manually or by bot, there has to a (cited) source for the information. I'm not sure how well a bot will be able to handle this given the variety of sources used. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Compute
currently redirects to Computing, which I guess reflects the use of the term as a verb ('to compute'). But this term has in recent years acquired another meaning, as a noun, where as far as I can see it refers to computational power. Where is that second meaning treated on Wikipedia? What to do with the redirect? – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So maybe somewhere add a link to Computer performance? ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Wccftech
I've opened up a discussion about Wccftech on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and I would appreciate if more people left their opinions on the matter. - nathanielcwm (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Applied Predictive Technologies request
Hello, I'm Sarah from Mastercard. I've posted an edit request for one of our subsidiaries, Applied Predictive Technologies. You can see the request here. I used the request edit template and thought I would also let editors here know in case it is of interest to anyone. Thanks! SarahP2023 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

PMU and SMU
I noticed these articles, and, they are written to seem to only exist on Macintosh computers, but PMUs and SMUs exist all over the place, not just as Apple parts. Shouldn't these be rewritten to show the wider world of PMUs and SMUs ? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless expanded, both articles would be better covered as a section/subsection of an another article (with possible redirects). Specific chips are only rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest WP:BLAR or merging rather than AfD or PROD. Those topics might be notable and it would be nice to keep the revision history. But they don't need to exist in their current state.
 * A lot of our hardware articles suffer from the same problem, and it's best to BLAR most of them into more foundational articles, expand and improve those, and only then, split back out when length becomes a concern. There are far too many stubs and it's hard to know what they're really about or how they fit together, since many of these stubs lack sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Best practices for History section
Are there commonly accepted best practices for writing History section? Many computing articles have them in the beginning.

For historical articles, for example Cray-1, it unquestionably makes sense. It's a lot harder to understand purpose of them in modern ones, such as Google Ads or Brave (web browser), where they tend to attract news-like coverage without clear threshold for inclusion or purpose. In many cases, it looks like the material from "History" would often be better suited for another section of the article.

Are there any relevant guidelines or prior discussions that would indicate state of the present consensus for writing History in articles for current-day computing topics, as well as whether History is always expected to be the first section? PaulT2022 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 20 years (Google Ads) is quite a long history for a computing related subject. I don't see this as a NOTNEWS issue (note I'm rarely interested in subjects younger than 25 years, so I have next to no experience with articles about recent topics). I'm not aware of any project specific guideline covering this (unlike eg. articles about videogames). Pavlor (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess, it's more a question of Google launched AdWords in 2000. Initially, Google set up and managed advertisers' campaigns. Google soon introduced the AdWords self-service portal to accommodate small businesses and those who wanted to manage their own campaigns. being next to an in-class academic exercise for tertiary students and In 2018, Bloomberg News reported that Google had paid millions of dollars to Mastercard having same weight. (If we are to take Google Ads as an example, but there are no shortage of articles with similarly written History section.)
 * I'm not sure I see how this is a useful explanation of the Google Ads history. What determines importance of a given news report to the overall history of the article subject?
 * I was hoping to discover (or develop?) some sort of collegial standard instead of relying on ad-hoc argument in case of individual articles. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, editors should not be in the business of judging the relative importance of primary sources like news stories. Generally in trying to ascertain the due weight of various historical facts, it is best to use secondary or tertiary reliable sources to establish their relative importance. For Google Ads, look for sources that discuss the history of Google Ads or Google in general. They should give a good idea of the milestones for the service and those could used to organize a history section and justify eliminating minor events with no secondary coverage. If a topic is so new that there are no RS discussing its history, it's probably best to not (yet) have a History section. -- 17:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Importance
Would be nice to build a detailed importance table, like WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment. quite a few of our top-importance articles don't seem foundational, but it's quite tough to decide how to rate. DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * We have one at WikiProject_Computing/Assessment. Are you requesting more detail? ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Given the project's broad scope, detailed importance criteria would improve consistency; we should be able to ask 50 editors to apply the criteria to an article, and not end up with differing ratings. The criteria's focus on networking also contributes to ambiguity.
 * Rather than Internet Protocol be Top-importance, I'd rather have Computer network, Programming language, Data science, Computer science, Operating system, Mainframe, Personal computer, etc., notable companies, and broad historical eras. These are major subfields and "textbook subjects". Just note that beyond Internet Protocol, I've re-rated maybe two dozen articles, stuff like Microsoft Windows and Mac (computer) that wholly fit within these aforementioned topics. Perfectly willing to self-revert those re-ratings if you think I should. My rough inspiration was the WP:VG assessment scale which seemed better than ours. DFlhb (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

PROD of Functional decomposition
FYI. The article Functional decomposition has been PRODed. If anyone cares about it, they should take steps to clean it up a bit. I think its a valid (software and systems) engineering topic, but what do I know. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have WP:DEPRODDED based on what I take to be an objection. ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Now nominated for deletion. Articles for deletion/Functional decomposition Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

New APT request
Hello again, this is Sarah from Mastercard. Dropping by to let editors here know that I've posted another request on Talk:Applied Predictive Technologies in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you! SarahP2023 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wolfram Language being opensource/proprietary
There has been some discussion on whether it is open source or not [1]

Anyone knows a proper source regarding this matter? FallingPineapple (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN Discussion of a source related to FOSS topics
is here FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

AfC Review of Draft:Kenneth L. McMillan
(Cross-posted here from the talks page on Wikiproject Computer science).

Hi,

I recently worked on an article draft about Ken McMillan, the computer scientist (Draft:Kenneth L. McMillan). I contributed the article because I noticed there is a German Wikipedia page about him (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._McMillan) and McMillan's name has been referenced in several related Wikipedia articles (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Kanellakis_Award, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Esparza). Help for improving the draft and reviewing would be much appreciated, thanks! 2601:48:4300:580:597B:D8B6:B6F8:647A (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of artificial intelligence
History of artificial intelligence 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. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source for Bush hid the facts bug
Hello!

This old, formerly unexplained Windows bug has been explained completely in a recently published YouTube video. Unfortunately, the explanation in the Wikipedia article is wrong, and the YouTube article doesn't look like a suitable source. The video does say how to reproduce the bug though, which I believe hasn't been done before. Someone familiar with what sources might work in an article like this should have a look. Thanks! --Renerpho (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move: Computer security
FYI, there is an RM at Talk:Computer security. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not moved. Some reorganization will be done instead. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Office Assistant has an RFC on the name of the paperclip character
Office Assistant, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for the best name to use for the paperclip character. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Averixus (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hot-potato and cold-potato routing
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hot-potato and cold-potato routing that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Some help for an Articles for deletion.
I've recently nominated the article Herb Sutter for deletion here. Would love for some additional participants to help us reach a consensus. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Closed keep ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move: Hewlett-Packard and HP Inc.
See Talk:HP Inc. Chiffonr (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

PDP-8 and the PDP series
The article PDP-9 says: "The 18-bit PDP systems preceding the PDP-9 were the PDP-1, PDP-4 and PDP-7. Its successor was the PDP-15." Wasn't the PDP-8 in there? Also, the predecessor/successor in the info box don't include the PDP-8. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that these are 18-bit computers, whereas the PDP-8 line are 12-bit computers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

More opinions needed - is Intel 7 a 7nm or 10nm process?
There is a discussion at Talk:7 nm process § Intel 7 regarding whether the "Intel 7" process node (previously known as 10nm Enhanced SuperFin) should belong in the 7 nm process article, or in the 10 nm process article. One side argues that it should be in 10nm article because most reliable sources call it a 10nm process, while the other side argues that it belongs in 7nm because its density and clock speed characteristics are as good as, if not, better than 7nm process nodes from competing foundries like TSMC or Samsung, and also a lot better than 10nm nodes from the competitors. Any help or more opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks. — AP 499D25  (talk)  09:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

BitTorrent
Today I cleaned up the messy and overloaded intro of the BitTorrent article. It at least looks a ton better over there but there's still a lot of work that need to be done to the rest of the article. There's a lack of sources in too many places, and I think some restructuring is much needed. Anyone willing to improve the article is welcome. (on a side note, I am thinking of nominating Torrent file for deletion). Chifonr (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Convertible laptop
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Convertible laptop that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Third party opinion on a hacking claim wanted
At Talk:Julian Assange there is a discussion about According to Andrew O'Hagan, during the 2011 Egyptian revolution when Mubarak tried to close the mobile phone networks, Assange and others at WikiLeaks "hacked into Nortel and fought against Mubarak’s official hackers to reverse the process". ". This is supported by a reliable source but no independant source has been found saying any hacking by anyone happened. I think the author probably confused the then current situation with something about Assange in 1991. Report: Egypt Shut Down Net With Big Switch, Not Phone Calls gives a timeline. Do you think what is described sounds reasonable or is extraordinary? If extraordinary then an independent source is required. NadVolum (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Context and quotes
 * O'Hagan said At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada. Julian and his gang hacked into Nortel and fought against Mubarak’s official hackers to reverse the process. The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates. Some RSes quote and attribute this
 * and During my time with Assange there was a moment, it was during the uprising in Cairo, and it became obvious to Mubarak, the leader there, only too late that the revolution was essentially being organized by Blackberries, by social media, and by people fully in connection on their phones. So he closed down the Internet in the country, and I have to give him credit for it. It was an amazing thing to watch. It was new to the novel, new to the cinema, new to any sort of reportage that I’d ever encountered, was that five young people, young hackers in this house, me leaning my back against this typical English Aga, as they went to war from this house with Mubarak’s official hackers, going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier and fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them. said live
 * Timeline shows intelligence service continues to shut down remaining ISPs until they restored it, so shut down never finished
 * Related talk Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Softlem (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See ISP for what they do, an ISP connects a user to the internet. If an ISP can't connect to the world wide web then it can only provide a very limited service to its customers including voice and SMS. The Ramses exchange connected the ISPs to each other and the world wide web and was shut down. The mobile phone voice service was mostly closed down but then allowed to operate again after one day. Analog landlines were not affected by the shutdown. What a portal of a telecoms equipment manufacturer in Canada can do in such circumstances I haven't the foggiest idea and I'd be frankly amazed if Egyptian intelligence officers bothered hacking it. Though I do know the Chinese hacked it to steal their manufacturing designs! NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If an ISP can't connect to the world wide web then it can only provide a very limited service And if a service that came through Canada was shut down in Canada then it would never reach Egypt
 * Please stay on topic. The mobile phone voice service was mostly closed down but then allowed to operate again after one day. Analog landlines were not affected by the shutdown. has nothing to do with what O'Hagan said since we found the second source where he says it was the internet, I thought it might be about calls but the second source sounds like I was wrong. What a portal of a telecoms equipment manufacturer in Canada Nortel did more than that they did telecom and wireline, optical, wireless networking and they bought companies that did too can do in such circumstances I haven't the foggiest idea and I'd be frankly amazed if Egyptian intelligence officers bothered hacking it. What you dont know doesnt help Though I do know the Chinese hacked it to steal their manufacturing designs!
 * I gave source quotes and links. Our opinions and OR dont matter. If you want the project to say something we should let them. If you want to argue, go to Talk:Julian_Assange. Edtirs here know where to look Softlem (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your "What you dont know doesn't help" is why I'm here. If people here can't figure out a way hacking in Canada can help when the internet in Egypt is switched off then it really is an extraordinary claim. We may all be ignorant and there is a way but it would still be an extraordinary claim. NadVolum (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your "What you dont know doesn't help" is why I'm here. I know its why posted here, saying it again doesnt help
 * If people here can't figure out a way hacking in Canada can help when the internet in Egypt is switched off Please stop oversimplifying the timeline and what O'Hagan said
 * then it really is an extraordinary claim People here not being able to reverse solve something more than 10 years after without all the skill Assange had and information Wikileaks had then, more than we have, doesnt make it an extraordinary claim. If they say its impossible that going through the portals of a company that does telecom and wireline, optical, wireless networking and helped build Egypt's telecom infrastructure before, can help when Egypt's mobile phone network came through Canada and Egypt tried to shut it down then its probably an extraordinary claim
 * For now we should leave it for the people here Softlem (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternative that Assange was telling him of his exploits in 1991 and he mixed it up with the current events in 2011 is altogether quite easily possible. NadVolum (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The bit that probably is true is that the people with Assange cheered when the internet was switched back on after five days. But it is pretty obvious they played no part in that and "fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them" is a bullshit interpretation of what was happening by O'Hagan. Assange's team couldn't switch on the Ramses exchange and the ISPs did what the government told them to do. NadVolum (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You wanted WikiProject opinions. Stop giving yours and telling them what to think and what is pretty obvious and what your WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION is Softlem (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was you who went on that it had to be impossible before it could be considered extraordinary - and then only probably extraordinary! Why are you so desperate to include this stupidity without even the tiniest corroboration and when some non-technical bloke like him could easily make the obvious mistake? NadVolum (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was you who said that people here had to explain it to you or it was extraordinary. Why are you so desperate to exclude something that has 6 or more sources it?
 * Im just asking you to not stop WP:BLUDGEONING and wait for someone here to reply and until then accept @HaeB told you Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal.
 * If you want opinions from WikiProject stop bludgeoning and wait for them to reply. If you want to say you know better than the RS who saw it, find something new to say or wait for a question or get an RS to publish you so we can cite you Softlem (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you just stop with that six sources please. They all are just quoting Andrew O'Hagan, and attributing it to him. They are citations showing he said it, nothing else. There was no reason for any of them to have it fact checked. That is the sort of thing that makes me ask why are you so desperate to haveit in? NadVolum (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I said they all attribute it to him.
 * There was no reason for any of them to have it fact checked. You asked at Verifiability and HaeB said all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements
 * why are you so desperate to haveit in? You said you would support its inclusion if you actually believed there was some truth in it rather than O'Hagan mixing up things by mistake. Why are you so desperate to remove something you agree is DUE because of OR? You wanted this process and comments so let the process happen and wait for comments and assume good faith Softlem (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As to my reasons it alleges Assange once again hacked Nortel like he did in 1991 and was convicted of. As far as I can see every single one of O'Hagan's statements about it has big problems. I don't think it is right to reproduce an allegation of a crime with such unlikely evidence without any backup. Especially when he could easily have mixed it up with 1991. Just about anything besides another quote of what Andrew O'Hagen said is all I'm asking for, for instance that Nortel really did control part of the mobile phone service or its systems were hacked or some evidence of hacking in Egypt during the shutdown or some explanation of how he could actually do anything in Egypt. I don't require evidence Assange restored the internet after defeating Mubarak's hackers like Andrew says. What are your reasons for wanting it in? NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons for wanting it in? Its DUE like you said and an RS saw it and like HaeB said reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements and no one denied it Softlem (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those reliable sources are just others copying what O'Hagan said and saying he said it. They're not independent sources and they're not even in the least interested if it is true or not, they're just doing things like advertising his book. You just shouldn't do that, it's wrong. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith on youtr part. NadVolum (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway I'm abandoning this. It is obvious nobody on this project is going to respond and I'm not going to find people with relevant experience elsewhere to give an opinion. I'm sorry it is so easy for rubbish to be stuck into Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

CMSwire at WP:RSN
Here canvassing in an attempt to get more discussion for a topic I started at RSN related to the publication cmswire.com. Since the source is pertinent to this project and used on a lot of pages that fall under this project, would hope someone can weight in on the discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The 'country' of Razer Inc.
See Talk:Razer Inc. where I questioned whether Razer is best described as an 'American-Singaporean' company. Cfsprt (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Digital media use and mental health
I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking review of NerdWallet Products and services changes
Hello there! I'm stopping by because I have a COI and need an independent editor to review some changes I'm proposing to the NerdWallet article's Products and services section. This WikiProject is listed on the NerdWallet Talk page, so I figured someone here might be willing to help out.

If you follow this link to the NW Talk page, you'll see that I had been talking to an independent editor about these changes, but they dropped off the thread. I've tried reaching out to them once already, but I don't want to be a pest. I'm wary of making demands on volunteer editors' time. If someone here could pick up where that other editor left off, I would deeply appreciate it. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thanks! KB at NerdWallet (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Null (SQL)
Null (SQL) 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. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Voice over LTE
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voice over LTE that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Forth (programming language)
Forth (programming language) 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. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of new WikiProject: Operating Systems
Hello, I am working on creating a new WikiProject, and I am looking for others to join in the creation of WikiProject Operating systems. If you'd be interested in joining and supporting the project, add your name to the proposal support list here. Thanks! OnlyNano 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I applaud your enthusiasm, but I fear this new project will be too small to survive in the long term. In any case, I will continue to work on computer history related subjects (if I find the time...), so I will help your WikiProject indirectly. Pavlor (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thank you! OnlyNano 16:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Internet Relay Chat
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Internet Relay Chat that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Make WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Manual of Style/Computer science
Please see proposal at: Village pump (policy). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Global Diplomacy


The article Global Diplomacy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The article about a computer game lacks sources and seemingly lacks notability per the advice at WP:NVG. The linked webpages are also dead, indicating no continued relevance. One alternative would be to merge with Email Games, the game's publisher, but there is no such article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I added this game to List of play-by-mail games, using the archived sources on the PROD'ded page, and redirected there. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for review
I've submitted a draft article on converged databases for review. I'm requesting that someone review it and approve it if it's acceptable. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Converged_database KLR422 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Accepted. Thanks for the contribution. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm very appreciative and proud to make a contribution. KLR422 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of Display resolution, Graphics display resolution and Computer display standard
I've started a discussion about how to handle these seemingly overlapping articles. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artificial intelligence art/Archive 1
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence art/Archive 1 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Digraphs and trigraphs
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Digraphs and trigraphs that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 诉  02:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments on MP4 as an open format needed
There's a dispute at MP4 file format about its status as an open file format, and since we've reached the limit of the three-revert rule, I would like to ask for opinions at its talk page. Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A related discussion is now also going on at . --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TACL
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TACL that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JMesh
Hi, This article could use the input of a knowledgable editor (i.e., not me...) --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. Exclusive Editor Notify Me! 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested merger at Talk:List of fictional computers
There is a requested merger discussion at Talk:List of fictional computers that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dash77 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Surface Pro (2017)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Surface Pro (2017) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lightoil (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Project Harmony (FOSS group)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Project Harmony (FOSS group) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting a new section for the LiveJasmin page
I am seeking guidance on the appropriateness and any suggestions for improvement/editing on the following proposed section: Talk:LiveJasmin Alexfotios (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Base address
Hi, I've been looking at Base address which is currently an unref page. I'm not clear if the references I'm seeing are referring to the same thing, I was hoping someone here could perhaps improve the page? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)