Computing desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13

Sort list in Excel - max number of rows

What is the upper number of rows that Excel can sort in a reasonable time (nothing above some minutes)? Does it matter how many columns the rows have or how much content is in the cells? --Dikipewia (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to just run some tests rather than try to figure out the internal sorting mechanics they use. Note that the time and limits may depend on your hardware, like your RAM and CPU speed. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 2003, the maximum number of rows was 65,536, and this is still the limit for any file saved in the old xls format. The limit was increased to 1,048,576 from Excel 2007 onwards. As StuRat says above, there is no rule on time because every different machine configuration will have its own sort time, and the time will also be longer if other applications are actively running in the background. If you are sorting on more than one column, the time will be longer. Dbfirs 12:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting and replacing pages

Hi, I was wondering how to deal with multiple pages covering the same information. I would like to condense all the information to one page, and make the page consistent with other similar pages in that category. The current "main" page does not follow the consistent format as other pages in it's category. The page I'm trying to update is the SAM file format page, and I'm trying to make it consistent with other bioinformatics file format pages (such as BAM and FASTQ). Nr spin (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nr spin: Read WP:MERGE, in particular the subsection WP:MERGETEXT, and come back if you have any more questions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript for editing pages

Hello, I'm trying to write a small piece of javascript code for use on Wikipedia. The code is supposed to replace everything in a specified user subpage with a single word upon execution. By far, I've had little success with it. Any kind of help (or a code snippet I could work on) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! RoCo^(talk) 12:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but you should probably lurk a bit around Wikipedia:Bot_policy - I am not sure you are allowed to do that. (Though if the script only edits your own userpage, I doubt anyone would complain.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tigraan, I'm aware of the bot policy. However, I don't think it would require a bot. A javascript code would suffice. Also, is there a way you know I could configure and use an already existing bot to check a user page at regular intervals and/or edit the page as stated above? Further, there are scripts already that edit pages, so I don't think it should violate the policy. Once again, thanks! RoCo^(talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot policy doesn't just concern things that are named "bots"; it concerns all automated and semi-automated editing. Also I'm curious what you're trying to do exactly. If you explain what you're trying to accomplish we might be able to suggest a better way. Beware the XY problem. Anyway, I suggest moving this to the technical village pump, as it's about Wikipedia editing. The Reference Desk is for questions that aren't about Wikipedia itself. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm trying to design a script that automatically changes user status (online,offline,away, etc.). I have an idea for the different components of the script and am looking for an editor proficient in javascript on Wikipedia to aid me. I can explain the details and working I have planned if you want to know them. I have some experience in C++ so it should make the work easier. Thank you. RoCo^(talk) 13:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as suggested by you, I will start a new discussion on the technical village pump. RoCo^(talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

relation ship between ecmascript, JavaScript, jscript

Why job ads often talk about JavaScript developer or JavaScript programmer but not ecmascript developer? Isn't JavaScript basically just ecmascript? And what's the point of jscript? Isn't it counterproductive when browsers have different standards and render pages differently? Couldn't it all be just ecmascript with added DLLs if needed? What's the point of having so many variants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.177.151 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript is a language developed by Netscape. JScript is a language developed by MicroSoft. ECMAScript is a language standard that web browser scripting languages should meet. When talking, developers call all that in-browser scripting stuff "JavaScript" because there is no benefit in starting an argument about who developed what. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some info on the differences between JavaScript and ECMAScript. As 209.149.113.5 said, JScript is a Microsoft-specific dialect of of the language. clpo13_(talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The historical reason is because it was originally called JavaScript, and the name stuck. When they standardized the language, it was decided to avoid using any name that may be a trademark or refer to a specific vendor's implementation, so they just chose ECMAScript as a name for the standardized version, after the group that standardized the language. No one uses the name outside of standards wonkery because everyone knows what "JavaScript" means in common usage: that language that's embedded in Web browsers and some other stuff like Flash. As to Isn't it counterproductive when browsers have different standards and render pages differently?, yes, that's why they decided to standardize it. But implementing a language exactly as described by the standard is not for the faint of heart. Read an actual language specification sometime and revel in the mind-numbingness of it. And not only that, but for doing it in a browser there's the whole rest of the browser's code to contend with; you're not just writing a standalone implementation from scratch. Nonetheless the major browsers have done a lot of work on standards-compliance and harmonization. If you think it's bad now, take a look at the good old days of the late '90s/early 2000s. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why 3G and 4G must count data but WiFi no need to count data?

Is cause how the technology work or only cause how the Internet company make money? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your question. But I'll try to answer anyway.

On most phones, "data usage" means 3g/4g cellular data usage, because usually people have to pay money for that. If they use more, they pay more. (At least, if they use more than some bandwidth cap.) On the other hand, people don't typically pay for WiFi in that way, so they don't care how much they've used. ApLundell (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is cause how the technology work or only cause how the Internet company make money? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curious Cat On Her Last Life, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) put a transfer cap on broadband (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 'WiFi') data as well. You might have heard of the term 'fair use'. It represents a cap on data, after which the ISP might slow down the internet speed, or charge you extra. Most just slow down the speed.

On the other hand, 3G and 4G networks usually charge users extra after the data limit has been surpassed. If you wanted to know why data is not counted for broadband usage, let me tell you it is indeed counted. You may not notice the difference as:
1) It may not be as visible as seen for 3G/4G networks in phones (Depending on your ISP, you might have to login into a web portal to see internet consumption).
2) You may not be notified for exceeding the fair use limit for broadband as often as for mobile networks (3G/4G) as the limits are usually much higher.

Hope I answered your question! RoCo^(talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just endorsing RoCo's answer, as it is functionally the same as the answer I would give. The only thing I would add is this:

WiFi is a standard for short-range radio data communications. The WiFi you get at home isn't actually provided to you by your ISP, but is produced by the wireless router or WiFi enabled modem (which is really just a modem with parts from a wireless router included in the box). You "own" your own WiFi, whereas you simply "lease" your internet connection. So when you are connected to WiFi on your phone, you're really using the WiFi to connect to the internet service of whatever location you're at (a store, office, or a home), rather than connecting to your cellphone data carrier (which is the 4G/3G connection). I hope this helps.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(after e/c)

If you're asking why 3g/4g costs money and wifi doesn't, it's because those networks are fundamentally different in the way the technology works.

When you use 3g/4g you're connecting to a cellular tower owned by the phone company. That tower has limited capacity, so the more people who use 3g/4g the more towers they have to build.

When you use WiFi you're connecting to a wireless router nearby. Probably owned by the homeowner, or by the local business owner. In that situation the phone company is not involved, so the phone company does not charge you any money.

Some places (Hotels, airplanes) will charge money for Wifi, but that's a separate charge that does not go on your phone bill. ApLundell (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, as well.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Roco and ?Pants for the good answers! Now I understand. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that most internet service providers provide data plans which have a minute cap as well. So you (or someone else) IS paying for WiFi usage; it shows up on a different bill (on the bill for the ISP rather than for the cell phone bill). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The cell company doesn't charge you when you get data over WiFi because when you do that, the data doesn't arrive at your phone through the Cell Tower, it arrives at your phone through whatever internet service the WiFi is attached to. That's why your cell company doesn't charge you; you aren't using their data. When it comes over 3g/4g, you ARE using their data. But even when using WiFi, SOMEONE is charging SOMEONE for that data usage. --Jayron 32 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that if you live in a place like NZ, you'd find free WiFi can still be a bit hard to find even in shopping complexes etc. Some places still only have paid WiFi which sometimes does include data charges. Sometimes you can get a free amount per day (or whatever) and will need to pay if you go over. (Sometimes there's also a time limit.) This isn't just something limited to hotels. Some people also have their home internet via wifi (generally Long-range Wi-Fi with directional antennas), again these may often have data charges. (Although I'd also note that in NZ while low end plans often do have explicit data caps, unlimited data wired home broadband is very common now with many ISPs. And while these technically have fair use requirements, it's often quite hard to exceed them unless you're doing something like transferring at 5 mbit/s 24/7. And even if you do, it generally means either your ISP will ask you to reduce usage or more likely they'll start throttling you or put into a group together with high usage users.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that free WiFi is still not ever free; someone is paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the system that delivers the data to your device; whether that cost is past on to you as the end user or whether the cost is eaten by the business providing the service as a loss leader is irrelevant. Many business in countries with well-developed internet infrastructure give away their WiFi for free as an incentive for staying in the business (that is, if my local Starbucks doesn't charge me to use their WiFi, I am more likely to buy something from them). That's what a loss leader is: the company takes a loss on a product or service (in this case, the money they pay their ISP for sufficient bandwidth) with the understanding that such a loss is likely to generate more revenue in their sales. Still not "free" though. Somebody is paying for it. --Jayron 32 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]