Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computer science

WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style , a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style

Note icon

This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.

Note icon

For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL . Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates to article titles and capitalisation, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

---

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

There doesn't appear to be a guideline for how one is supposed to format file extensions when referring to them in articles. Some articles use <code>.ext</code>, some use {{code|.ext}}, several use the now-obsolete <tt>.ext</tt>, and many articles simply type the extension with no special formatting. File extensions are formatted wildly inconsistently across Wikipedia and even within pages. There needs to be a standard way to format file extensions. — Katie <3 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

(Found this after looking at https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B_Programming/Programming_Languages/C%2B%2B/Code/File_Organization, which oftentimes surrounds extensions with quotes, and wondering what Wikipedia did.)

I don't think a file extension counts as code, so maybe {{mono }} would be appropriate instead? AltoStev (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see proposal at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Bilorv, in the RfC about making this a guideline, supported but with this quibble: I'm not sure how much I like the example articles given (some have issues like technicality of the lead, unverifiability or indiscriminate detail), but these can be improved over time.

Any suggestions for replacements (or improving the example articles in situ)? Didn't want to just leave this indefinitely hanging from the RfC, in which pretty much everything else was resolved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the ping. I can't put the improvement of these articles high on my priority list, but hopefully many of them will be naturally improved over time by volunteers. Dining philosophers problem seems to use C++ rather than pseudocode and I'm not sure how great its sourcing is (when sources are given, like Chandry and Misra, I'm not sure due weight is followed). Halting problem has some justified tags relating to modern citation expectations—I think many computer science articles suffer from lack of inline citations. I'm struggling to find articles to suggest in their place, however. — Bilorv (talk ) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Titles_of_works#Software_titles. fgnievinski (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

B-tree, Splay tree, Red–black tree, AVL tree

All of these show different ordering, formatting, and titles for the space/time complexity section of their infoboxes. Should there be a decided upon style for them? I personally like a "Complexities in Big O" header before having time and space sections. It's not helpful to go between articles quickly to see their differences and be met with different boldness, italics, and ordering.

I see now that the two infoboxes are related, only that one is the shows the amortized complexities. I believe they should be changed so that the ordering is not different. Fuser55 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]