Talk:ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference

Removing the SC14 Section[edit]

The content of this removed section in its entirety (only one sentence: "The SC14 conference was held in November 2014 the Convention Center in New Orleans, Louisiana") appears in the 'history' section in the line corresponding to 2014, so no information is lost. Additionally, why does SC14 deserve its own section? What makes it special relative to the other SC-s? --Dan.tsafrir (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ACM/IEEE Supercomputing Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of years, chairs, locations, etc. and self-published references[edit]

I post this here in case future editors question the value of the two major tables in this article concerning the locations/chairs/acceptance rates and keynote speakers. There is some disagreement among Wikipedia editors about applications of standards to WP pages about technical and scientific conferences. For example, see Talk:SIGGRAPH. Here one editor makes the argument, based in part upon upon an RfC documented on Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, that dates and locations of conferences and meetings are not encyclopedic and therefore don't belong in a Wikipedia article -- note that they aren't arguing the information is not valuable to the community involved, just that they don't belong on WP. Another editor weighs in on the SIGGRAPH discussion at the invitation of the first and makes the argument that "the importance of major conferences, especially in some fields of engineering, is so great, that they should be thoroughly covered in WP." The table of dates is, in the end, preserved.

I think the table of dates, locations, proceedings links, and acceptance rates is of interest (especially the last category of data, which reflects interest in and competitiveness of the field). The table of keynote speakers may be less relevant to the purpose of WP -- which isn't to say that that information may not be of interest and value to the community, just that it may belong on some web site maintained by the conference or its sponsors. I added this table originally, and now have doubts, so will leave it to others to weigh in on whether it should or should not be retained. It would be valuable for more effort to be spent on this page documenting the relevance of this conference to the field and establishing it as a "major" conference that deserves to be part of WP.

Many of the links on this page, especially those supporting acceptance rate figures, may be regarded as self-published given that they are published in the digital libraries of the event's two sponsoring societies (ACM and IEEE). I don't believe this raises any of the usual self-published sources concerns (Wikipedia:Verifiability) because the uses do not conflict with the five tests listed in that section of the referenced article and because the sponsors are the most likely authoritative source of this information.Ozaab (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]