Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Articles with links to DAB pages[edit]

I have collected several pages which contain {{disambiguation needed}} tags on computing-related topics which might be resolvable with expert attention. They range between the very technical and the very vague (in some cases, it seems quite possible that the editor who made the link didn't know what they were talking about). To find the problem, search for 'disam' in read view or for '{{d' in edit view. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article, and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk)

CPU Sockets and Memory support[edit]

Hello. There are many articles about CPU Socket that completely lack info about the supported memory types. Here are some of the Intel Sockets:

Can someone please help adding that info?

--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it at the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § JAXenter (jaxenter.com, jaxenter.de) and HTML.it for Draft:Eclipse Theia. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Power Architecture on Wikipedia[edit]

Power Architecture is a marketing term that was promoted by IBM and Power.org members during the mid- and late-2000s. It is an umbrella term that was used to describe anything that had some relation to the POWER, PowerPC, or Power ISA architectures. It has been out of use by IBM et al. since IBM founded the OpenPOWER Foundation and Power.org became defunct sometime during the early 2010s.

Wikipedia has followed IBM et al.'s usage conventions of this term, and has applied it liberally throughout the encyclopedia, which has resulted in:

There are two problems with this term. Firstly, it's technobabble. It sounds like as if it's a well-defined technical concept, but it isn't. Secondly, it has a large potential to confuse. "Architecture" is an too-overloaded term in ordinary English and in computing. In computing, it could refer to a multitude of different things depending on the context. For example, in the context of hardware, "architecture" could refer to the architecture of a computer system, the architecture of a computer subsystem (processor, memory, I/O, etc.), or the abstract model of a computer (also called computer architecture or instruction set architecture).

My concern is what do readers think of when they encounter "Power Architecture"? Besides the ordinary uses of "Power" in English, IBM has used "Power" or "POWER" in a number of different contexts. Originally, it was an instruction set architecture (IBM POWER instruction set architecture). Then it was a series of processors IBM POWER microprocessors. Most recently, there's a family of computers called IBM Power Systems. Then there are nouns that include "Power" as a part, such as PowerPC. While Wikipedia can't do much about the names of these things, since it must call something by its name, it can omit "Power Architecture" when it isn't relevant to the article, doesn't explain or clarify anything in the article, or doesn't improve the article.

To demonstrate that this is not theoretical, consider the Power Architecture article. Its purpose is to explain what the Power Architecture is, yet it's confused. The article provides a glossary to define the various terms that could be confused with each other, and then proceeds to make two glaring self-contradictions:

  • It has a large section about the Power ISA, which the article earlier defined as something that is distinct from the Power Architecture (the former is a computer architecture, the latter is a trademarked umbrella term that may refer to things with a relatation to the former).
  • It concludes with a long confused list of things that "implement" the Power Architecture, which is a misuse of "implement", and a misunderstanding of the Power Architecture. If Power Architecture is an umbrella term for various related things, then it cannot be something that can be implemented—it's not a specification.

As another example, consider Template:Power Architecture. The way it is structured is confused. Power Architecture isn't a standard which is "made" by various manufacturers. The standards are the POWER, PowerPC, and Power ISA architectures. Yet there is no consistency in the way that template is organized. That cannot be conducive to easy navigation.

The importance of this term is also overstated on Wikipedia. Category:Power Architecture duly follows Power Architecture's definition; every article that meets the definition is categorized in that category. However, the majority of the articles are about topics that predate the introduction of Power Architecture. Given the nature of computing, the majority of the sources for these articles would likely predate the introduction of Power Architecture as well. Consequently, most, if not all, sources that these articles cite, would not support the claim that these are Power Architecture topics. To say that they are Power Architecture topic places undue weight on the marketing from IBM et al.

Because Power Architecture is a vague, ill-defined marketing term and has a large potential to confuse, what is its encyclopedic usefulness? I would argue it has none. It's not a definition that explains and clarifies, and it doesn't group topics together better than the existing schemes that are founded on technical criteria. It exists on Wikipedia because it does elsewhere; and its conventions are followed because Wikipedia can, not because Wikipedia should.

The organization of the topics that fall under the Power Architecture umbrella should be determined by what makes good sense for an encyclopedia. To this end, I think:

  • The Power ISA content in Power Architecture should be split out into Power ISA.
  • The content in Power Architecture about the term should be merged into Power.org. It is sufficient to explain that Power Architecture is a marketing term in the article about the organization which spawned it.
  • Every mention of "Power Architecture" in contexts other than as a marketing term should be removed from Wikipedia. There's no need to insert this term into every topic that Power Architecture deems falls under its umbrella. Where this term has been used mistakenly instead of the correct term, the mistake should be corrected. For example, if an article about a processor describes it as a Power Architecture processor, then the actual architecture the processor implements should be mentioned instead.
  • Category:Power Architecture should be deleted. There's no need to categorize articles under it just because IBM et al. say their topics retroactively fall under the Power Architecture umbrella.

99Electrons (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of this sounds reasonable to me. The only standard other than the Power ISA that I see mentioned on Power Architecture is the Power Architecture Platform Reference; other standards can probably have their own pages as well.
Power.org appears to be dead; is that a further sign that "Power Architecture", as a concept, is also dead? The OpenPOWER Foundation page (which I just fixed to use https: for all openpowerfoundation.org links, as that site seems to reject Boring Old No-TLS HTTP) says that "Power.org is still the governing body around the Power Architecture instruction set" - is that now out of date?
And is there anything in the PowerPC ISA that isn't in the Power ISA? If not, the two ISAs should perhaps be discussed on the same page - perhaps have a single page for the ISA, have "PowerPC ISA" redirect to it, and combine ISA information from PowerPC and Power Architecture on that page. Guy Harris (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Curses to IBMs terrible naming strategies. And I agree with Guy Harris.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Harris: I'm almost certain "Power Architecture" as a brand is dead. I can't find any non-incidental or legacy use of it on IBM's website (which seems to use the OpenPOWER brand instead). It's the same for the OpenPOWER Foundation. I can't find any current use of Power Architecture using that website's search function or with Google.
I think merging the PowerPC article and Power ISA content from Power Architecture is a better solution than having a separate article for the Power ISA. The latter is clearly an outgrowth of the former: The manual for Power ISA 2.07B ([1]) says in the preface that Power ISA 2.03 was created in 2006 by combining PowerPC 2.02 with PowerPC Book E, which was then not a core part of the architecture. Note that in Power ISA 3.0 B, all of the embedded features introduced in 2.03 were removed (as documented in the preface of [2]). I personally don't think this is relevant to the question of whether PowerPC and Power ISA can be covered in the same article, as 3.0 B is still a development of something that began with PowerPC. 99Electrons (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I forgot to mention this in my OP, but there's a few discussions concerning "Power Architecture" and "Power ISA" in category names that has some relevance to this discussion:

99Electrons (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that most of this confusion is due to IBM's inconsistent use and definition of what's what. I've tried my best to unclutter it, but hell, it's not easy. I cant be as invested in Wikipedia as I've been in the past, so I gladly pass on the enthusiasm to whomever what to keep on pushing. Most suggestion seems reasonable. You have my blessing going forward. -- Henriok (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree The phrase "Power Architecture" is really dumb and ambiguous, to distinguish its usage for several different things, there is need to use correct phrase. Editor-1 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot to do auto-assessment (among other tasks) and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta[edit]

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of LWN.net on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion on the reliability of LWN.net (formerly Linux Weekly News) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § LWN.net for Draft:NumWorks. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 02:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD on Harald Tveit Alvestrand[edit]

Deletion of the article on Harald Tveit Alvestrand has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand. You are invited to join the discussion. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox OS component[edit]

Template:Infobox OS component has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox software. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.[edit]

Hello WikiProject Computing members,

Sad mac.png

WikiProject Apple Inc. has halted and needs editors to restart it. If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch. Post a message there, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word,

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

.

Apple TV[edit]

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Haskell (programming language) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Haskell (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Java (programming language) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Java (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Python (programming language) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Python (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Haskell (programming language) (it's part of a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template_talk:Search_engine_optimization Add other People Around The Globe[edit]

I feel as if only people who work at google or closely associated with and/or American is not enough in this list. Dprophitjr (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Network security / ARP spoofing - Requesting review/info[edit]

Hello, (ARP = Address resolution protocol) ARP spoofing is a pretty common network security vulnerability and the ARP spoofing page does not include proper information about how to defend against such an attack in the defense tools section for windows, I tested a lot of the tools my self and most of them do not work properly, at least on windows 10, which is pretty unacceptable seeing how common and easy this attack is to execute, I am not knowledgeable enough to add certain information either, if any network literates can add to it, that would be great Apool125 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a network that uses ARP and an attacker with direct access to the local network segment? If so, a VPN is considered to be the best defense. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

New Page: Cipher Knowledge 360[edit]

I am interested in creating a new page that would fall under the Computing wiki project. It's a competitive intelligence program called Cipher; I am currently a student of intelligence studies. It's relatively new and has developed by Knowledge 360. I was hoping you would be able to offer me tips to make the page more successful from the start. Any insight you can give is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lash975 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

By "page" I presume you mean a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are about topics that have already been noticed by independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the first place to publish information on a topic. Our guideline Notability goes into more detail. As you start to read that policy, you will see mention of special-topic notability guidelines (e.g. for books, or for sports and athletes). I don't think there is any special-topic notability guideline for computer software, cryptographic systems, or mathematics, so you can just go by the general notability guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any independent third party coverage of this software? I mean reviews in mainstream media, not some no name blogs or community sites. Without strong sources, new article would not survive for long. Could you link here 2-3 best sources you found, so we may review them? Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the definition of "general purpose computer"?[edit]

I was under the impression that a general purpose computer is a computer that can, in theory, be used for many different purposes. As an example, the microcontroller in my keyboard (an ARM Cortex) is a general purpose computer (the same chip is used in PCs, toasters, printers, robots...) despite it being used for a special purpose and despite it not being easy to reprogram to do something else.

I was just reading our article on Colossus computer, and found that Colossus computer#Influence and fate claims that the definition of a general purpose computer is not whether it actually is usable for general purposes but [A] whether it was designed for a specific purpose (which would imply that the Intel 4004 isn't a general purpose computer) and [B] to be general purpose a computer must be Turing complete. (Actually, no computer is fully Turing complete because no computer has an infinite amount of memory available, but we traditionally ignore that detail). Is this a useful definition? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Colossus at The National Museum of Computing, Bletchley Park UK. You can run a virtual Colossus yourself at www.virtualcolossus.co.uk
To me, a general-purpose computer is not just one that can be used for many things, but in principle can by used for any thing for which it has sufficient memory. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, here are some online definitions:

I think the term probably came in use in the 1960s (1950s) where certain digital computer models were optimised for scientific number crunching and others were more optimised for business transactions .... see IBM 7090, CDC 6600 vs IBM 1400 for example. The IBM 360 was a general purpose design to cover both.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been looking through books, trying to find a definition. This is from a classic textbook, Computers: Appreciation, Applications, Implications - an Introduction, by J. Mack Adams and Douglas Haden, Wiley, 1973, p. 6:

Digital computers can be further divided into two classes: special-purpose and general-purpose. A general-purpose computer is really quite like the SMD [Symbol Manipulation Device]: a very flexible symbol manipulator. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer that is always used the same manipulations or class of manipulations (i.e. a special-purpose digital computer is a digital computer with the program built in or with at least most of the program built in). An example of a a special-purpose digital computer is a missile-guidance computer: it has a very specific task for which it is designed and is not expected to be able to run a payroll program, for instance, in addition to its designed task...

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that you have nailed it. I think we can remove the Turing machine claim, and any claims based upon what it was originally designed to do as opposed to what it is capable of doing.
As I read your sources, I changed my mind about something. The microcontroller in my keyboard is a special purpose computer, even though it is an ARM Cortex-M and the ARM Cortex-M is a general-purpose computer. I realized that context is everything. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mahara (software)[edit]

Newly created article that might not be notable per WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. There may be specific notability guidelines for software, so I was wondering if someone could take a look at this and assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like solid sourced article now. However, as usual, you may check: 1) if these sources have broad coverage of the article subject, or only passing mentions; 1) if their publisher publishes anything (vanity press, some open access "journals"), or is more selective; 3) if there is some connection of authors of said sources to the article subject (eg. developers themselves), or it is third party independent coverage. Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Pavlor. I also asked about this at WT:FOSS#Mahara (software) and another editor named Newslinger was able to find the additional sources and has been cleaning up the article. I'm sure any additional feedback/suggestions you may have would be welcome on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:RTL/2[edit]

This draft was developed by a user who is no longer active, but appears on first glance to be appropriate for evaluation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think there is an existing article of the same name ... just to cause complications. This draft might be more appropriate for Wikibooks...Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There was an article already, based on the same draft. The presence of the slash in the title confuses the macros, so that I didn't know that there was an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

New multiplication algorithm[edit]

Here is a new multiplication algorithm. Does it need an article, or be mentioned in an article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out![edit]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SGI Origin 2000[edit]

Could a section on 'currently working' machines be added as it only describes decommissioned machines - For example the 64 CPU machine based at the Centre For Computing History in Cambridge?

James 14/04/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha0124 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not? If you have a good reliable source to back up this claim, feel free to add this to the article. However, I would not create a new section (putting short note at the end of the models section should be sufficient). There is also question of due weight of such information, but this kind of computer is not a device everyone has in their house. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Retention of VPN Products[edit]

There are at least of couple of VPN Products/providers up for AfD currently (and I'm aware of a few other article out there). This can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship an which ones work in China etc. We have a at least a couple going through AfD currently and I'd like a project viewpoint on where we would like to stand on this from an efficiency point of view. I'm not really interested in playing tiddlewinks with how RS a review is and who is WP:PAID the brown envelops behind the scene . I want them batched out if necessary if that's what the community wants. Currently at AfD are:

I may get round to pinging people at some point: Criteria might want to consider are:

  • Sustained presence
  • Size
  • Do they work in certain regions or are the only ones permitted in a region ... e.g. China
  • Security concerns.
  • Popular for whatever reason in a particular area

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat bad idea. These criteria are arbitrary, subjective and against the very core tenets of Wikipedia. WP:N and WP:RS are the "rules" we should follow. We may discuss degree of coverage needed for a VPN service to establish notability, but not inventing our own hard to judge rules. Pavlor (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, a proposal of that shape is not going to mesh with existing notability criteria. The applicable guidance we have in this area is WP:NPRODUCT. It's fairly simple in practice: if we can find a couple reviews published by WP:RELIABLE sources, we can keep it. We try to stay out of issues like "can be important from a security viewpoint, as well as a consideration where there is state censorship" because that's an even weirder game of tiddlywinks. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
At best you can write an WP:ESSAY, but even that may be a bad idea. There is nothing unique about VPNs that require us to consider them differently from other software from an inclusion standpoint. feminist (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Phoenix Labs article[edit]

As recommended by user:Michael Bednarek in the article's talk page, I suggest to merge Phoenix Labs, an inactive, former software development company into PeerGuardian, the company's software. As is disclosed on my user profile, I am an employee of Phoenix Labs - a separate company with the same name that is active and operating. Once merged, the article Phoenix Labs could - with the appropriate hatnote - be repurposed for Phoenix Labs the active game developer.

Current Phoenix Labs article has no references to reliable sources, so there is possibility of deletion anyway. There are several solutions:
1) Move to eg. "Phoenix Labs (software company)" and then redirect to "PeerGuardian". "Phoenix Labs" name will be then free for another use (page usurpation) without losing or mixing article edit history. Well, there may be problems with links to the original page changed to redirect. Certainly not the easy way.
2) Deleting the original article (eg. via WP:PROD) and using the now free name for your article (with hat note to the PeerGuardian article).
3) Using another name for your article (eg. Phoenix Labs (video game developer)). Cheap and easy.
However, as you have conflict of interest, you should publish the new article via WP:AfC. Note notability requirements for companies are much higher than for eg. video games, really good sources are needed to keep such an article. Pavlor (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with Citrix Systems[edit]

Hi there! Wondering if anyone from this project can offer some thoughts on a question I posed at the Citrix Systems Talk page: Would editors support simplifying the current Products section to a much more straightforward and short statement of the company's major offerings? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Amiga has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amiga. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Coffee Lake/G5400, G5500, G5600?[edit]

Under the parent "Pentium-branded processors" section, the last apparent listing for the most-recent Pentium generation ends at Kaby Lake. No mention of Coffee Lake Pentiums except as an aside within the header information. In fact, the G5400, G5500, and G5600 series Pentiums aren't even listed once in the entire article. The new Gold G5xxx and G5xxxT processors should be included. Rhombuth (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Outlook[edit]

As Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Software seem to be moribund I am posting here. Can anyone who is familiar with the various platforms/services of Microsoft Outlook please comment at the RM discussion on Talk:Outlook on the web? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing&oldid=896212750"