Talk:List of computer scientists

message: In case the wording at the top of this list is not strong enough, this list should be for research scientists, not anybody with a CS degree and not random progammers.  They should also be notable - either a mile-long list of CS publications and/or a significant accomplishment, although the accomplishment can be non-computer-science related, for instance a memorable quote, best-selling SF books, longest motorcycle jump, etc.
: Actually no - it's not strong enough because that's NOT the title of this list.  The title is "...computer scientists" - NOT RESEARCH scientists.  And no, the word scientist does not automatically denote those involved in research.  If the desire is to include only those who do research, then I suggest changing the title accordingly. Aleding (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned and undated comment (pre-November 2012)

message: What should one do if a computer scientist or other academic suspects that an article or entry was created by a former or current student?  Can the subject of the article request its deletion because of possibility of conflict of interest (although he/she was not aware of the article when it was created and did not influence its contents)? Docfeinman007 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion

message: I added Herman Hollerith who was not a research scientist at all; but his work on punched card machines was an important (perhaps the only) step between Babbage & Lovelace before him and the theoretical work and analogue computers that came after him. --Sewing 18:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Herman Hollerith

message: Euler, Hertz, and Leibniz were computer scientists? Huh? If I'm just overreacting, let me know, but I think these should be removed Dysprosia 23:20, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Mathematicians specializing on computation theory can be "honorary computer scientists" :-) , like Boole and Church, but the list should be really really short. Stan 05:06, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. Computer Science exists for some hundred years, even though it was not called CS in those days. Graph theorie is one of the most important parts of CS and exists just because of Euler. Leibniz was specialised in computing machines. Of course he is "computer scientist". In case of Hertz, he is more an engineer than an computer scientist. 82.82.128.94 14:28, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: What about Mark Zuckerberg? He is obviously not a computer scientist (Unless we want to include the gang of Gates, Jobs, Page, etc. here as well). Zzarch (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted Mark Zuckerberg, who is definitely not a research scientist. Ionocube (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Zukerberg

message: I don't think Linus really qualifies as a computer scientist, since I don't think he's done any research. He's already on the programmers lists, that should be good enough. Stan 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linus 

message: While annotations on the list are good reminders of who's who when you're looking for someone, I don't think there's much need to link all the terms in the annotation lines. They aren't that useful, because the bios have that, and it means that the "what links here" for every major topic includes this list, irrelevant at best. Stan 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delinking annotations 

message: I noticed that this name is in lower case and was about to change it to title case, but decided to double check it first. I did a Google search and can find no evidence of the existance of this computer scientist. Maybe the name here is spelt differently to his actual name. Does anyone know who he is or is this name a spam addition to the article? Big Mac 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted junrex as a suspected hoax.  -David Schaich 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is 'junrex gonzales'? 

message: I'm going to assume that like most wikipedia lists, we don't want items in the list until they've been shown to be notable enough to have an article to link to.  That is, this list should not be the place for notability decisions.  So I'm taking out the red-linked individuals. Dicklyon 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red-linked names

message: Should this list contain all computer scientists who are notable enough to have a wikipedia article? If not, who should be included? :Category:Computer scientists + subcategories contain many people not on this list, and most of them are known for something. — Miym (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection criteria? 

message: In case anyone is interested, 524 (88%) of the 594 listed are men, and 70 (12%) are women.  Scientists with names that could be either men or women (such as Lee and Robin) were carefully checked for gender using Wikipedia.  Here is the raw data:  http://MenAssociation.com/article/ComputerScientists
CICorporation (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer Scientists by Gender