Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Archive 9

CiscoWorks Vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiscoWorks While maybe funny, "Small Penis Network Management Solution (SNMS)" and others might potentially not be accurate.

Request for comments: cleaning up Timeline of programming languages
Timeline of programming languages has been a bit cluttered for a some time, so in an effort to clean it up, i proposed some inclusion criteria and related changes to make it more useful; i'd like to invite anyone interested to comment or help out. —Piet Delport (talk) 2009-10-23 00:18

Section names in technical articles
To discuss the section names of the following articles: There are three discussions ongoing that relate to the general efficiency of the future structure of our technical articles' inter-linking and interrelation.
 * operating system
 * file system
 * computer networks

The issues are section naming and article sizing.

Quick overview of the ideas I bring up: I propose as a guidline:
 * For articles whose subject may include many competing products, section names should not normally contain the products names. Such sections might be better named more permanently. Any link to any section may become more structural than even categories or outlines, because changing a section name later can become more difficult than changing the structural elements in a category or outline. Notability guidelines do not directly limit the content of articles, and structuring by product name encourages size, tempts WP:COI, and may increase bias and zealous editing in such articles.

And the Manual of style currently says:
 * Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.

Join the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_111. Happy editing!

&mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Binder Icons
Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help me. I understand that Microsoft discontinued Binder in XP, but if you had a binder 2000 document (.obd) file on an XP computer, would the Icon be like an XP style one, the same as the Win 2000 one or one of those 'placeholder' white icons? I also have many screenshots of Microsoft Binder in 2000 if anyone feels that they are appropriate for the article. 95jb14 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

HyperText Template Help
The article for HyperText Templates has been highlighted as being in need of alot of work, I created the artice but wthought I'd best bring it to your attention. 95jb14 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC).


 * I tagged it for the Project, maybe that will help. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Government Data Management Practices
I've started an article at User:Joe_carmel/Good_Data_Practices_Related_to_Government_Data in collaboration with the W3C eGovernment Intererst Group and DAMA. Please help us create an appropriate article for this topic. Joe Carmel (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Multidrop Bus rework
I've done a bit of rewriting on the Multidrop_bus article, but feel that it is still too little information there. It'd be great if someone could look at the current state of things. 94.218.58.72 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing History as Told by First-hand Participants
Only a few people know the real history behind the birth of XPath, and I'm one of them. The real history was swept under the rug because a small start-up made a tactical decision not to confront Microsoft over its bullying. That history probably could be gleaned from written records by a good paleotechnologist, but only with a lot of effort.

How do I, one of the participants in that history, cite my report of the actual history if I add it to the XPath article? It should be possible to get several of the other participants to vouch for the report, but I don't know if that helps. Or must unwritten history be left out of Wikipedia? Jtlapp (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I find cases like this disturbing, but unfixable as the question is posed. My preferred solution is that a reputable journal publish your story, then we can quote it and reference it in an appropriate article on the subject.  I realize in cases like this it is difficult because of annoying little things like The Law and NDA contracts, but yes, adding your own first-hand experience would be inappropriate.  I suggest reading up on the policy at WP:V and the guideline at WP:RS so you can understand the conditions under which the story can be told in Wikipedia.  You might also check out the "Criticism of Microsoft" article to see how this works in practice: This article would flunk nearly every Wikipedia policy and guideline, except for the fact that it is an impeccably well-sourced article, citing verifiable secondary sources for the information in it.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one way to do it is to quote me (Joe Lapp) and others involved. But then you'd need a citation for the quote.  I am one of the early authors of XPath and its predecessor XQL.  You probably can't get more reliable than that.  It just bothers me that power can smother history, especially when it's instructive history.  The authorities at the W3C were informed of the matter at the time, so it would not be news to them. I don't know whether TimBL was informed, though I suspect he had to have been.  I don't have inside knowledge of what went on at Microsoft so I wouldn't bother pointing fingers at anyone.  In fact, the story is a useful example of how one turn one's pet technology into a worldwide standard, and for that I'm actually thankful to Microsoft. Maybe we just need a magazine to interview the parties involved? Jtlapp (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, an interview would be a good approach. You will appreciate that anyone can claim to be anyone here, so we need WP:RS to prevent nonsense being posted (I have no doubt that what you say is true, but in general there is good reason to doubt a lot of other editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This forum is more about Xpath itself (Thank you!) and computing copyediting, restructuring articles, etc, but to do so we have to know a relatively small amount about reliable sources, verifiability, and neutrality... oh, and notability.  I think step one is WP:RS and Verifiability, which sounds to me like you already stand on.  It sounds like you have plenty of WP:Notability to start a real something. Step two would have to be  WP:Neutral point of view.  Neutrality might dress that subject matter you mention when the Xpath article has a much a much broader content. See? The overall (meta)physics is that it takes an equal and opposite force to move the the other (meta)object. I did find V. &mdash;  Cp i r al Cpiral  17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, if you want to go there, you might cite WP:POLE. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear then: the other force meant was Microsoft, not other editors. Joe has a lot more learning and seeking and writing and interviewing, etc, etc, to do.  How much?  Well Microsoft has expended a lot of effort magnifying the territoriality trait.  Even so much as a squeak against anyone here, and ya gotta put in much effort.  I see how it looks like I meant WP:POLE, but I didn't really mean it to. Thank you. &mdash;  Cp i r al Cpiral  22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting List of emerging technologies
I have suggested that the section List of emerging technologies should be given its own article. The idea is to hopefully attract more experts in the field by making it more specialized. A suggested name is List of emerging information technologies, or just Emerging information technologies. Please give your input at the talk page.

A problem with this page is that none of the technologies are supported by any references. What criteria should be used for including a technology in the list, or removing a technology? I would prefer a page about current trends in research and development, ongoing research, planned standards and products, etc. Related pages and categories are
 * Unsolved problems in computer science
 * Category:Upcoming software
 * Category:Upcoming chips
 * Category:Future products
 * Category:Future problems (for example the year 2,038 problem)
 * Category:2010s in science (Mostly astronomical events)

Mange01 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Annunciation of an outline for Operating system
Talk:Operating_system is an invitation to participate in the layout the future structure (and thereby content) of the operating system article, a rare opportunity for such a directional nudge. &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Operating system and Kernel
Operating system is pseudo Bclass. Much of the content of operating system is irrelevant, and the French, whose operating system is currently in discussion to move up from B-Class, have accused it of being unscientific. The makeover operating system is now undergoing is mostly removal of filler text that filled a starter-class Operating system article spun-off from Computer software. Currently it contains such irrelevancies as the product histories and trademark popularity of OS's, and those can be ignored by the critical referee for any referents in this exposition. The vision I have for Operating system is a general-purpose operating system article.

Kernel (computing) is a 68 kb-sized, B class article, which means, and I quote, "some sections may need expansion", and thus needs more space to accept "expansion" gracefully.

Presented here for Operating system and Kernel, is a special tranclusory merge sharing table.

Each of the five files would be a co-op guided by a main article, if referenced, and managed via Wikiproject computing watchers and editors managing the WP:Transclusion.
 * Histories. The evolution of Kernel and Operating system are the same, and can be merged into a category name;
 * Security and Protection. Security is out-of-bounds there in Operating system. Such misnamed sections are a content magnet for grave medal-ing. Similarly in Operating system, Network operating system is out-of-bounds. Talk:Memory hierarchy reasons why Network-attached storage would be out-of-bounds to memory hierarchy, and it is the same reasoning that applies rejecting a Security section in OS. Protection of the Kernel's can be shared with Security of Operating systems. This is true, because security is outsources to the user space, but kernel space protection is just process protection.  Security is not an OS or Kernel issue.   There is nothing in Category:Operating_system_security that would lead me to believe otherwise. For example Secure operating system says that title is is a misnomer, and Server (computing) says of their tight system security, only, "with advanced user, resource, data, and memory protection".
 * Occaam's razor. The Kernel should give OS the section Time sharing operating systems. OS will then integrate the sections named after products with their own sections named after products&mdash;in the deep-86, the re-integration-into-Wicker recycling bin. Operating system became List of operating systems long ago.

The issue I raise is multi-paging. Your input is multi-programming. Are you too busy to include the process I propose? I'm talking about time-sharing, and efficient watchers of this page-concurrency amongst the multi-members of Wikiproject computing. We will all be better off in this virtual world when the Google search results for either "operating system" or for "kernel" deserve Wikipedia in their top rung.

Happy editing! &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)