→Latest Android release: doubts and controversy: new section |
removing request: issue resolved |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
:The closer project is [[WP:WEBSITES]] but it might get more attention at [[WP:COMP]]. As far as keeping the article, it does seem like an important topic, but it was just released in 2010. It's all over message boards and blogs but I couldn't easily find any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Might be too soon. It's briefly mentioned in [[DocumentCloud#Open_Source_Software]] and I took the liberty of merging it there. I think it may not meet [[WP:GNG]] at this time and figure the interested editors are better off adding the verifiable material they can find than navigating policy and Afd. It's obvious to me it'll be Wikipedia–notable eventually. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
:The closer project is [[WP:WEBSITES]] but it might get more attention at [[WP:COMP]]. As far as keeping the article, it does seem like an important topic, but it was just released in 2010. It's all over message boards and blogs but I couldn't easily find any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Might be too soon. It's briefly mentioned in [[DocumentCloud#Open_Source_Software]] and I took the liberty of merging it there. I think it may not meet [[WP:GNG]] at this time and figure the interested editors are better off adding the verifiable material they can find than navigating policy and Afd. It's obvious to me it'll be Wikipedia–notable eventually. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Latest Android release: doubts and controversy == |
|||
Hi all, there seems to be a dispute on the [[Talk:Android (operating system)#Latest_release|Android talk page]]... Basically, two editors do not agree that a release of the source code counts as a release of the software... I disagree, so I would like to invite anyone with some skills [[Talk:Android (operating system)#Latest_release|to that debate]]. Regards --[[User:SF007|SF007]] ([[User talk:SF007|talk]]) 06:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:29, 19 November 2011
Software: Computing Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Software Quality Assurance Article: A Proposal to Move Forward
Updating this article seems to have stalled. Here is a proposal to move forward. The Software Process and Product Quality Assurance group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are significant practitioners and authorities on SQA. They are well aware that SQA is a somewhat contentious subject and have offered to draft a neutral article on the current understanding and practice of SQA for Wikipedia. This may be a good way to move forward as they are a credible source without any commercial interests or biases towards or against standards (e.g. ISO) and methods. Before they expend effort on this, they would like to get some indication of interest from the community and if they would be accepted as a credible and neutral source of information on SQA. Dport (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? (can't believe no one replied to this) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Question
Is there a list of recently deleted software articles? I want to know so that I can see if I can find sources and request their undeletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- No idea, I would look st recent AfD's with software tags. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Recommended Structure for Software Articles
Does anyone know of any existing standards for the structure of software articles? Here's a recommendation for the structure of an article about a school, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Structure. And here's one for countries: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines. And one for plays: Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure. It'd be great if we had guidelines like this for software. Matthew Simoneau (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are some very vague guidelines at WP:Notability (software) with a rejected request for expansion, but aside from that nothing much. Refer to manual of style. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Development status of MuPAD
There is a discussion about the development status of MuPAD at Talk:MuPAD, which people may be interested in. Yaris678 (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Second opinions about notability
Could I get some second opinions about Hamilton C shell? The only independent and reliable secondary source I see listed is this one by Dr. Dobb's Journal (not sure in which incarnation that source was in 1991). Other sources include a "personal website", a FAQ apparently produced by an individual, and a bunch of mailing list postings: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The other references are by the developer of this software, Nicole Hamilton, who is obviously not independent of the subject (just as an autobiography would not be an independent source in one of our biographical articles). I think this one Dr. Dobb's source would not confer notability under the general notability guideline (which is what seems to apply to software products), but I wanted to make sure I'm right about that before taking it to AFD.--Chaser (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, C_shell#Influence may contain some relevant assertions. There are no new independent sources, however.--Chaser (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a number of additional secondary sources (Middlesex News, PC Week, MIPS Magazine, BYTE, Software QA Magazine and Windows IT Pro) for a total of 7 traditional print sources about the product, spread over a roughly 10-year period. I also found an iTunes audio link where the author speaks publicly about herself and her name change on a panel discussion at Stanford; she comes on at 29:37. Advice here would help: The author seems open about her history but it doesn't look to me like there are sources to make her notable. BLP seems to favor discretion re: peripheral facts about a non-notable individual's personal life. Otoh, it's impossible to make sense of the sources if you don't know about the name change. So I've been struggling with how to treat this; right now, I have it in a citation. Some of you with more experience must have seen how this is usually treated.
- Overall, I totally concede that the article is far from done and what's there isn't as good as I'd like or know it should be. I'm new at this. The only thing I've really done so far was a rewrite of the C shell article from this to what it is now. I hope I made it better but realistically, I haven't gotten a lot of feedback. I'm just learning, especially about how write for WP, how to document notability, the difference between a primary and a secondary source, how to achieve NPOV, etc. I certainly make no claims to being at all good at any this! But I want to get better. Any helpful suggestions for improvement or help on the article itself will be greatly appreciated. All I ask is AGF and that you respect my anonymity. Cheers! Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Software development
It sounds like computer programming and software development fall under the scope of this project. Is that correct? If no one objects, I'd like to add those to the description of the scope. --Pnm (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Policy supports your position. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is the project scope at present:
- WikiProject Software is a collection of pages devoted to the management of computer software articles on Wikipedia.
- This is the project scope at present:
- We aim to help set up standards of organization and presentation for articles on:
- All articles dealing with software
- Articles dealing with Software Vulnerabilities and Exploitation (Viruses, Adware, Spyware, etc.)
- Articles dealing with Software Security tools
- Articles dealing with Information Security issues
- Articles dealing with free software
- We aim to help set up standards of organization and presentation for articles on:
- Adding software development is significant (it's only silently implied). A small fraction of the software development articles are tagged with this project now. There are a lot of them. They're significantly more technical than the other articles in this project scope.
- If software development is in the scope of WP Software, I'd like to modify the template so software dev articles can be more easily categorized. I think we should also affirm that software development is the best term to use (vs. the more specific computer programming, for example). We should also examine the related category Category:Software development.
- (I do think it's worth discussing before changing.) --Pnm (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Alleyway
The usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway#Requested_move -- 65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Computing importance no longer defaults to Software importance
Articles tagged using {{WikiProject Software}} will retain their Software importance, but will no longer get assigned a general computing importance unless one is provided explicitly using computing-importance=
.
When assessing articles for the Software project, please consider the computing importance and tag accordingly. For articles which also have a {{WikiProject Computing}} banner, its importance=
must match the Software computing-importance=
.
This will help WP Computing in three ways:
- Improve the accuracy of importance assessments for general computing
- Avoid unexpected changes to the Computing importance that result from changing the Software importance
- Bring attention to the parameter for general computing importance, reducing the likelihood of articles accidently being listed in multiple Computing importance categories. (This causes false entries in the Computing reassessment log – see discussion at WP:COMP/A – and likely other problems as well.) --Pnm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
New article request
UltraSurf, discussed in depth (along with the Global Internet Freedom Consortium) in Beiser, Vincent (October 2010), "Over, Under & Through: How Dissidents Punch Holes in China's Great Firewall — And Evade the Cyberpolice", Wired, 18 (11): 178–186. Probably other sources out there too. Not my subject area, so I'm hoping someone better versed might be interested. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does it meet WP:NOTABLITY? If so you could create an article with references. Make sure you use the <ref></ref> tags to cite your sources. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Software development process/methodology merger proposal
People may be interested in Talk:Software development process#Proposal to merge Software development methodology here v2. Yaris678 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to merge Software license agreement into Software license
I'd appreciate more input on this merge discussion. It began in 2006 and I'd like to get it closed, but there isn't consensus for a merge or a rationale for disambiguating the topics. --Pnm (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this unreferenced article. I'm not a software guy and don't edit in this area. Thought you all might know what do with it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added a notability tag. Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Editorial dispute at Comparison of platform virtual machines
I would like to request editorial assistance in arriving at consensus on the appropriate state of the article Comparison of platform virtual machines. Please see the discussion so far. Psuedonym 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
ACCPAC
ACCPAC has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
RfC on the use of terminology like “GiB” (gibibyte) on Wikipedia
Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in this table of the “Hard disk drive” article of nomenclature such as “KiB”, “MiB”, and “GiB” to describe capacities. The governing guideline on MOSNUM is Quantities of bytes and bits. The quality of the discussion can be improved by broadening participation of the discussion. This will hopefully more fully achieve a consensus. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Content of Infobox software - how many software releases to show?
Is there any best practice for the number of software releases that should be show in the "latest release version" parameter of the {{Infobox software}} template? I ask, because one editor is defending the display of four separate release version numbers at PostgreSQL. We have argued at Talk:PostgreSQL that only the current version of the latest release should be shown (which is after all what the parameter is named), as is currently the case in articles such as MySQL, Firefox, Joomla, Ubuntu (operating system) etc., all of which have multiple releases but he is having none of it. In an attempt to gain some consensus I would appreciate opinions from members of this project (who are very welcome to shoot me down if I'm the one who is wrong). --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm considering adapting this useful template for more generic usage. Currently, 'A component of Microsoft Windows' is included by default. Adding an extra parameter would allow its use for components of other OSes. Perhaps there's already a suitable template available, in which case I'd be interested to know. If not, I think the template could be adapted in either of the following ways:
- New template based on {{Infobox Windows component}}, but including a new parameter parent_os or similar, along with any other changes deemed appropriate.
- Move {{Infobox Windows component}} to {{Infobox OS component}}, again after including the new parameter. If the parameter isn't present (or is blank) the template could default to the current Microsoft Windows statement. This would ensure existing usage (via redirects) isn't broken.
Thoughts? --Trevj (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather we simply did away with it entirely to be honest and just used {{infobox software}} for all of them. It doesn't really make sense to maintain two separate levels of abstraction for these software components when there are only ~200 articles using the system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Team Software Process Revisions
I am writing on behalf of the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). We have noted that the Team Software Process page is in need of updating. It is noted on the Team Software Process page that "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)." The technical staff at the SEI has also uncovered several factual inaccuracies on the page.
In an attempt to help address these shortcomings and to ensure the page is accurate and up-to-date, we recommend that a number of factual updates and citations be made. We first and foremost welcome and encourage edits from the community. Please note that any edits made by the SEI will be sourced, justified factual changes that are made with the best interests of the Wikipedia community in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.28.14 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion about title of Unix shell article
People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Further discussion. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
ZextCMS
Hello, please help on how to fix this following article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZextCMS and also remove old article from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zext Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxwire (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
PackML
Not too sure if this is the right project, but someone may want to take a look at PackML. It was written by the organization behind the 'product'. I have no idea what this talks about, but it's pretty clear it needs cleanup, a proper layout, a proper lead, etc. It seems to contain original research too, but I'm not sure. If anyone wants to take a look, and maybe initiate conversation with the user who created it (see bottom message), it would be appreciated. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Software Engineering Institute
Hello, I am an employee on the corporate communications team at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). I’m seeking help in updating the outdated information that is currently in the Software_Engineering_Institute Wikipedia article. I’ve included links to several resources below that contain information about the SEI and programs, and technologies. Please feel free to consult these sources as you are making updates to the article.
Thank you for your help, Dana
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10182/1069538-28.stm
• Dr. Dobb’s Journal: http://drdobbs.com/222301637
• PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/216936/when_trusted_IT_people_go_bad.html?tk=rss_news
• Government Info Security: http://www.govinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=465
• Software Integrity Blog: http://blog.coverity.com/uncategorized/interview-with-robert-seacord-head-of-the-secure-coding-initiative-at-cert/
• Bank Info Security: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=823
• On Software Engineering: http://onsoftwareengineering.com/2010/12/03/cmmi-version-1-3-and-agile/
• About.com: http://adulted.about.com/od/learningorganizations/a/seicertificationatcarnegiemellon.htm
--CMUSEI (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMUSEI (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
HP TeMIP Software: notability and referencing concerns
Hello all,
Would any interested parties here like to take a look at HP TeMIP Software? I landed on it from the Random Article link yesterday, and one thing that jumped out at me was its complete lack of references (no Reference section, no inline citations, not even an External Links section). I added the References maintenance tag and Googled to find some reliable sources, but I honestly couldn't find one that fit the guidelines, so I then added the Notability template too. I realize Google isn't everything, so I brought this here in case anybody might know how to source this article; as it stands now, I don't know that it could pass a deletion discussion.
I've outlined all this on the talk page too. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The article HP TeMIP Software has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The article fails to meet the general notability guideline; unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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.
This notification pertains to the topic I started above. If an interested editor associated with the software project wishes to contest the deletion by removing the proposed deletion tag and then supplying the secondary sources that the article requires, please feel free to do so. Northumbrian (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Bundled software#Redirect
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bundled software#Redirect. Trevj (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48
I was seriously considering CSDing this as advertising, bearing in mind the huge lack of RS I can find on it (see talk page). There seems to have been a lot of activity spamming it around forum sites very recently, including mention of targets for shipping it out .... I'm going to tag it as probably lacking notability, and PROD it, instead of going the CSD route. If any of you can find some decent RS for it, though, and maybe re-write it, please go ahead! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I prefer being neutral myself at this time. But I also do not see anything stopping you from deleting the article if you reported it. If anything more important came up, please feel free to notify us so that project members can act in case of need. Fleet Command (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Citing a WinHelp manual
Not sure if this project is still active, but I thought I'd ask this question anyway. I'm working on the article British Open Championship Golf, and I've run across a complication: its manual is a WinHelp file. I have no idea how to properly cite one of these, but User:Jinnai suggested that someone in this project might have had a similar problem in the past. Anyone have some advice? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is a one-liner about a Javascript library which I deleted after it was PRODded for lack of notability. That has been queried on my talk page by a user who says it is important, even revolutionary, and has "made most of my 10 years of web development experience obsolete"; so I have restored it, invited him to expand it, and now post here in case anyone is interested in helping. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The closer project is WP:WEBSITES but it might get more attention at WP:COMP. As far as keeping the article, it does seem like an important topic, but it was just released in 2010. It's all over message boards and blogs but I couldn't easily find any reliable sources. Might be too soon. It's briefly mentioned in DocumentCloud#Open_Source_Software and I took the liberty of merging it there. I think it may not meet WP:GNG at this time and figure the interested editors are better off adding the verifiable material they can find than navigating policy and Afd. It's obvious to me it'll be Wikipedia–notable eventually. --Pnm (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)