Talk:SIGGRAPH

message: any way to work this in? | http://xkcd.com/365/
24.63.4.126 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: xkcd

message: SIGGRAPH, though part of ACM, has become its own entity.  Newbies to SIGGRAPH may not make the connection and digging through ACM's extensive history and sections would bury SIGGARPH.  Let's leave it separate and give it the independent page it deserves for being such a great conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.5.58 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 September 2005
:I propose to move SIGGRAPH to SIGGRAPH (conference) and ACM SIGGRAPH to SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group), and to recreate SIGGRAPH as a disambiguation page. I find the current situation with SIGGRAPH describing the conference and ACM SIGGRAPH describing the Special Interest Group confusing. —Tobias Bergemann 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer disamb links at the top of the articles, which would clear up confusion preserve the ease with which the articles can be linked to. — brighterorange (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACM SIG and conference 

message: Siggraph 2013 will be in Anaheim. Siggraph 2014 will be in Vancouver  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.225.34 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All upcoming Siggraphs have been added Blueal (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 and 2014 

message: All links on the page to the 2000 to 2007 papers seem down. (i.e. http://www.cs.brown.edu/~tor/sig2000.html)
There's just this message left: This page has been removed at the request of the ACM Publications Board.
The 2008 to 2010 links work fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.14.185 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to papers 

message: Please correct me if I'm not doing this correctly, but I want to create a forum here to discuss repeated edits by the user "Randykitty".
Multiple users including myself disagree with this this major edit and would like to stop the "edit war".
Please advise. Thank you.
Terrence Masson (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also refer to a similar RFC here, where there is a clear consensus that this kind of info does not belong in an encyclopedic article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

text: *It's now been three days, so I assume you're not going for another RFC and will remove the list. --Randykitty (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit discussion  

message: This page has been tagged with self-published and third-party tags, presumably because some of the citations refer to references coming from the SIGGRAPH organization itself, or third-party references that include data that is likely provided by SIGGRAPH (e.g., attendee counts at conferences).  However, we should be careful to read the specific wording of the Wikipedia:Verifiability page, namely:
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
# the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
# the article is not based primarily on such sources."
In the context of the current page, self-published and third-party citations are used to support only the following facts:
* That the publication used to be single-blind, and was subsequently changed to double-blind.
* That prior to 1992 papers were printed in the Computer Graphics publication, and then in the SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings.
* The number of attendees and exhibitors in each conference year.
It seems fairly clear that none of these three items violates any of the terms (1)–(5) in the list above.  For instance, noting some procedural details about SIGGRAPH publications is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional.  None of these facts relate to claims about third parties nor events not directly related to the source (the citations are used to reference only SIGGRAPH itself).  In the case of the facts about publication, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity: in fact, one can directly check the ACM Digital Library to see that the publication history is as stated.  The only possibly contentious claim is whether there is any reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the attendance numbers, though this concern basically feels paranoid: would ACM SIGGRAPH falsify attendance numbers and provide them to numerous reputable news outlets (including the LA Times)?  Seems like a major legal risk (fraudulent advertising over many decades), for very little benefit.  And even if they were willing to make this gamble for some crazy reason, why provide the media with declining numbers over the years?  Basically I'm just trying to point out that this data falls under item (4) above: there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of this information (even if there is an unreasonable doubt!).
Overall, I'm not seeing any major point where WP:Self-published and/or WP:Third-party are really suitable for this page.  Other editors should please chime in.71.112.159.53 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: nor I. Bssic statistical information about an organization can come from the official pages of the organization. If there's a reasonable challenge, especially if other sourcessay differently, then additional sourcing is needed. This will usually not bethe case for such things as attendance at a convention or number of members (with the caveat that it is possible to have somewhat varying definitions for each of these, e.g. paid attendance ; dues-paying members,).  DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  looks good to me as well.  let's remove for now (and can of course continue the discussion here) 68.14.90.109 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving self-published / third party tag