imported>Stephen Ewen |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (64 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Computers
| | {{archive box}} |
| | cat1 = Computers
| |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check =
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = n
| |
| | cleanup =
| |
| | by = [[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 06:38, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }} | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ''Copied from the [[CZ:Notice Board]]''
| |
| :Is there any objection to put a deepening layer in the [[Computers]] pages? I would suggest the following layer between computers and the final detail pages: [[Computer Science]] [[Science of Computers]] and [[Computer Linguistics and Semantics]] (Generally the first two are distinguished as follows: deployment of science, pure science (theoretical) and logics, linguistics and semantics oriented.
| |
| :Thanks.
| |
| :Rob
| |
| ::That sounds fine to me. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "deepening layer" and breaking computer linguistics /semantics out from the rest of Computer Science is something I'd have to see more about, but overall - sounds great, please get started. I'll watch this page (with the ''watch'' tab above) and help out where I can. [[User:JesseWeinstein|JesseWeinstein]] 16:08, 24 November 2006 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Delete the link between the Computers page to the Computers article ==
| |
| | |
| Hello,
| |
| | |
| I am figuring out how to delete the present link between Computers and the file Computers and inserting a choice layer inbetween, containing the proposed diversion of topics.
| |
| | |
| Any help???
| |
| | |
| thanks
| |
| Cassiopeia 22:07, 7 December 2006 (CST)[[User:RobertTito|Robert Tito]]
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Discussion Area ==
| |
| | |
| following here [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 22:37, 10 March 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Shouldn't the article be cleaned up before approval. It has at least still missing pictures (I copied them over from WP) and a strange, unnumbered "18" reference. Some real world references which don't expire (i.e. books) would also be nice. Or are we assuming the editors do that? --[[User:Markus Baumeister|Markus Baumeister]] 06:38, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Moving ==
| |
| | |
| I'm moving this to the singular form of the title. No reason for it to live at "computers" rather than "computer." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:24, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Professional Societies ==
| |
| | |
| I made ACM and the IEEE Computer Scociety into external links. Certainly my intent is not discourage articles on those particular organizations. Rather, it just seems that a link to the organization itself is preferable to a red link. If someone does write an article on either of these organizations, it would, of course, make sense to relink them. But how does one track such things? [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg]] 01:01, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| =Notice of desire for a major revision=
| |
| | |
| Hi all, I'm new here. I have taken the liberty of revising the status of this article down from a 1 to a 2. I am seeking permission to attempt a major revision of this article; if you agree, it will take me about a week to come up with it. My main complaint with this article is that is doesn't help a reader see the forest because there are too many trees.
| |
| | |
| This article appears to have been brought from Wikipedia originally, although it has been edited somewhat. I don't think we here in Citizendium particularly need to duplicate the Wikipedia approach, which I have found to be infuriatingly filled with details but still inaccurate somehow. I'm hoping to achieve a new perspective altogether, which may eventually point off to many splinter topics, but one which is substantially different than Wikipedia, which in my opinion, is trying to be a user manual or cheat sheet for college students.
| |
| | |
| A sample of my writing can currently be found in the [[German_language|German language]] article in Citizendium, which I recently replaced. I know the "Computer" is a topic a lot of people know a lot about, and many of us work with them. But they have been my life's work for 25 years or more, by training and profession. Please give me your honest opinions; I don't want to start an edit war or anything.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::I have now posted in the Computer workgroup forum that I'd like to make a stab at a complete overhaul (as in, throw out the existing and start over) of the [[Computer]] article. I have posted a rough draft of my (brainstormed) ideas [[User:Pat_Palmer/My_Sandbox|here]]. If no one stops me, I plan to wait a day or two and just go for it, but I'm trying to get the word out first. A lot of people have an interest in this article, and it's sort of at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't really lose anything by wiping this article and trying to write from scratch, because all the details are sitting over there in Wikipedia where we could recover them at any time :-) Please let me know your thoughts.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::Hi Pat. One great way to go about a major revision is to make it at [[User:Pat Palmer/Computer draft]] or [[User:Pat Palmer/My Sandbox]], then post the link here and to people in the Computers Workgroup soliciting feedback. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:25, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
