Template talk:Association for Computing Machinery

Additional sections?

Thank you User:Blueclaw for posting it because I was planning on doing it soon. I didn't know you were working on it. I was thinking the conferences and chapters might be a nice addition too. What do you think? They could be separate Templates or merged it. I could do it if you don't want to. StrayBolt (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding conferences would be a great addition, although there are quite a few so perhaps we should just link the flagship conferences for each SIG (I ran in to the same problem picking journals to link). Does that sound good? Adding chapters might be overkill, as they aren't typically individually notable enough to warrant their own pages, although I'm open to it if there's a good case for it. --Blueclaw (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you added Conferences and I added some more. I only added the ones listed on ACM article. Is there an automated way to add the template to all the articles listed? I added a URL to ACM Conferences page which might be improper. Should it go to ACM#Conferences or removed? StrayBolt (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and just added the template manually. I haven't found/made an auto-add crawler to suit my needs yet, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. Here's the current tool list that I'm aware of: Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools. ACM#Conferences is indeed the proper link, as I believe the rule is to minimize external links whenever possible. --Blueclaw (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving groups into separate templates?

I thought "Related societies" should be moved into a new Template and changed to something like "Computer organization" or something more academic/professional. That seems right because they are not tightly coupled to ACM. This could be an relatively easy change since there are only a few now. I had looked at IEEE templates and had considered separate ones for the groups (confs, sigs, pubs) you have. For conferences, IEEE has the full names which makes it easier to explore unknown events. That is a bigger change so seeing how others do it is worthwhile. Unclear about educational orgs because they seem dissimilar. StrayBolt (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are only three organizations under "Related societies", I think it may be overkill to break it into a new template unless we can make it more comprehensive. Having a separate conference template might be a good idea; I agree that browsability/discoverability is key. In my opinion the current IEEE template structure is too messy to be a good example of what we should aim for, in part because IEEE is a lot larger than ACM because they cover both EE and CS. As an aside, they should have a separate IEEE Computer Society template, which would be more on the scale of the ACM template. After some thought, I think we should drop the educational orgs section and instead have "Educational programs" to contain the ACM-W and ACM programming competition pages. --Blueclaw (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I learned about some ACM activities from your ed orgs list. Was also just looking at the North American competition results so thanks for adding that. There was this discussion about the IEEE template. When I was editing ACM "See also", I left this note "would like link to list of professional/academic computer organizations instead of individual links" because I didn't find a good list. Maybe the navbox could be "Major Computer Organizations" and it would link to a more comprehensive list. StrayBolt (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)