Template talk:WikiProject Computer science

message: It seems to be expressed that those on the project don't want to handle every related article. Perhaps, a few words can be updated to reflect such notion: "organize information in articles related to computer science". Otherwise, the tag might be put on all related articles. It just might avoid further debate to update it a bit. Any suggestions on the words? — Dzonatas 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related may be to broad 

message: The template should say "... within all aspects ..."
The template should say "... concerning all aspects ..."
* —Ruud 19:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is related to WikiProject Computer science, which is an attempt to organize all articles that concern any aspect of computer science. 
Is this acceptable to everyone? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're too fast for me; that's almost exactly what I wrote above.  The only problem with it is that it's a bit territorial.  What if an article is concerned simultaneously with some aspect of CS and some aspect of something else? Cjoev 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds... :-) Anyway, about the territoriality issue: we hammered on that a bit over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Computer science. That's why the template says that the article in question is "related to" WPCS, instead of being "part of" WPCS. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not copy Template:Chemistry, without the plural "projects" at the end? "Supported" and "central approach" are particularly appealing. I find its template remarkably gentle; moreover, their form is supported by WP:TS. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'm about ready to support any reasonable proposal that has a chance of ending the silly bickering that is currently going on. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Support —Ruud 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is related to WPCS, which is an attempt to create an organized collection of articles concerned with all aspects of computer science.  -- Cjoev 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No objections. —Ruud 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Do it. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Computer science attempts to organize all articles that are related to any aspect of computer science, and a wikipedian chose to include this article in the effort. — Dzonatas 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are explicitly trying to get away from any suggestion that a particular article is in any way a "part of" or "included in" the project. That is why the wording "related to" was selected in the first place. If you are going to suggest new wording, please make sure that it maintains a tone that does not sound territorial. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. It didn't seem so territorial with "related to any aspect of computer science" instead of "related to computer science." — Dzonatas 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The territorial tone is a result of the words "include this article in the effort". We are trying to avoid having arguments about whether a given article should be "included" in the project or not. If the template has the word "include" (or something that similar) on there, then there will inevitably be arguments about whether certain articles should have the template attached. If the template just says "related", then the line is much fuzzier. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Computer science attempts to organize all articles within any aspect of computer science, and a wikipedian concerned with this article chose to include it in the effort. — Dzonatas 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is related to WikiProject Computer science. If you would like to participate in this project you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Then we can all go back to making useful contributions to Wikipedia.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. I don't understand this argument: the only apparent dissenter is not even a participant of the project. Leland McInnes 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Beautiful.  Less process, more computer science. --Mgreenbe 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dzonatas was just blocked for violating 3RR so it would not be necessary to now, but I wouldn't object. —Ruud 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the disputed phrase. Hopefully this will prevent this same argument from arising again later. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An issue still was not addressed. It's really minor. I think it is really silly to avoid it. The template is easily a place to discuss issues, as it doesn't need sources or other pieces of policy like regular articles do. Ruud seems to like to block me rather than discuss. As simply I haven't seen him answer my questions, I continued to edit. What would you do if someone reverts you but doesn't discuss it? I didn't accept the quick-shot for consensus, so it isn't that I didn't want to vote. Why should I have to answer to someone's questions when they can't even answer mine? It's about mutual respect here. It's strange how Ruud didn't also get blocked since "it takes two to tangle." Actually, almost everybody here was about to get blocked from a discussion with admins. Almost everybody violated policy -- not just me. It's pretty clear that Ruud has used a certain technique to get people blocked when he disagrees. Instead, discuss it. Just like on the CS pages, I see no honorable debate here, which is one that is discussed by facts and not by policy. In the end, mgreenbe actually did take over the grammar issue with me. It was just a simple question to get someone elses viewpoint. Ruud couldn't give me his viewpoint and had to block me. Is my viewpoint in the above consensus? Are you sure we really have consensus? I was blocked and kept out of it. Did anybody say "Hey, wait... Dzonatas just got blocked... lets wait until he can vote also." Do you understand this point? — Dzonatas 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the disputed sentence because it was disputed. The template, as it stands right now, contains only things that everyone appears to agree on (even you stated that "This article is related to WP CS" is fine). If you would like to propose something to take the place of the removed sentence, please go ahead. But propose it here first. Don't just insert it into the template. Then we can get a consensus on that sentence, and add it to the template. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Wow... You do track changes. I didn't even get to type the above quick enough. I perfectly understand where Theodore7 comes from about edit clashes, as this one reports I had to merge my edit because you posted a poll before I could even save my notes for the change. — Dzonatas 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should have posted your speech first? —Ruud 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Poll section 

message: I've noticed that User:R.Koot has made two reverts in one day. Where is it allowed in policy to make two reverts in one day:
# 19:07, 9 February 2006 - identical - "rv, gr"
# 20:43, 9 February 2006 - identical - "rv (maybe propose it on the talk page first, k?)"
There is no policy on how many are "allowed", but rather how many are not allowed: 4.  See WP:3RR.  --Mgreenbe 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that you violated 3RR (probably twice) do you? —Ruud 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you have not answered question yet. I do realize I have made edits to the template, and that you have considered such edits as reverts. Prove it. I disagree. — Dzonatas 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Koot says the first revert is about grammar. Unless he can prove where I am wrong about the grammar, it is a personal attack. It should be easy to point out if it really is just about grammar. — Dzonatas 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Attacks 

message: :Part of editing on Wikipedia is accepting criticism of your writing.  Sometimes this criticism will be inexact or even wrong: it is still not a personal attack.  Comments on someone's writing (not their writing ability) are never personal attacks.  They can, however, be uncivil.
:Most importantly, there is a legitimate semantic issue with the sentence, as "within ... aspects" misapplies a metaphor of location. --Mgreenbe 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abitrary section header 

message: ::Dzonatas, I refer to this, under the section Actions and edits with widespread effects. I also quote from the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club which you are a part of and was also the reason you have been unblocked.
::*Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise. 
::*Never revert more than once — always take it to the talk page.
::*Avoid triggering edit wars — discuss major and/or controversial changes on the talk page beforehand.
::*Be bold (not reckless) in editing.
::I am not singling you out for the above, nor do I insinuate that you have violated any, but some may feel there may have been infractions on these. Most important is that you have agreed to some very binding terms yourself: These club members would show by example how to contribute in a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making a change..
::In fact, if you look at the history of computer science talk pages, I have supported your ideas before. I am not being unfair here. I would readily tell off R.Koot had he lanuched a personal attack (do note he has not since I have intervened in this dispute).
::Please cooperate as best as you can. -- Evanx(tag?) 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that this comment wasn't directed at me, since I have never been either blocked or unblocked. But the placement under my last comment, and the fact that it addresses "you" rather than a named individual confuses things a bit. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea for cooperation 

message: All of us are (I assume) getting sick of the arguments over how the first sentence of the template should be phrased. Why don't we just eliminate everything controversial? In any of the forms proposed so far (supported/related/referred etc.), the first sentence really doesn't add a whole lot of useful information. So, I would like to propose the following sentence, to comprise the entire text of the template:
: If you would like to participate in WikiProject Computer science, please visit the project and discussion pages.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to assert that the associated article has some relevance to computer science, but if this stops the "discussion", please do it. --Mgreenbe 09:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it would be nice to have an assertion of that sort. Unfortunately, none of the sentences on the table at present seem to satisfy everyone. If you can think of a wording that everyone can live with, please propose it. Unless we can find such a wording soon, I feel that the only way to stop the argument is to remove the source of contention. But I will not doing anything until all interested parties agree that this proposal is a solution they can live with. --Allan McInnes (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but I am of the opinion that, thinking that removing yet another sentence from this template would stop the dispute, is a bit naive, apart from unnecesarily reducing its clarity and usefulness.  —Ruud 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. You're probably right. I was just hoping to find some way to end the arguing. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The following are the candidates for the disputed phrase in question. Only one vote is permitted from each wikipedian.
* Amend to: referred by
: Support:
: None at moment
* Amend to: related to
: Support:
: None at moment
* Amend to: supported by
: Support:
: None at moment
* Amend to: part of
: Support:
: None at moment
* Amend to: apropos
: Support:
: None at moment
* Reword to: WikiProject Computer science has referenced this article. ... 
: Support:
: Dzonatas? {Please edit this line and confirm if you are)
* Condensation to : If you would like to participate in WikiProject Computer science, please visit the project and discussion pages.
: Support:
: None at moment
Feel free to add further suggestions but be mindful of the abovementioned.
-- Evanx(tag?) 09:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: The template is likely to remain in a fixed state for some time while this dispute is ongoing. I would like to propose that, rather than simply leaving the template in any partisan version, we revert the template to a neutral version until the dispute is resolved. The most natural candidate for this is the default form of Template:WikiProjectNotice:
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Computer science.  For guidelines see WikiProject Computer science and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
If this option is for some reason unacceptable I suggest blanking the template altogether until the dispute has been resolved.
Neither option is particularly palatable to any of the parties involved, but provides the most neutral interim form. Unless there are objections I will change the template to the default form tomorrow night. Leland McInnes 06:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim Measure 

message: In brief: No other comments directly about the proposals appeared in the last day. Let's table the proposals for a later date while we also not forget about the objections we have discussed above. Have we not found some common ground? — Dzonatas 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest to common ground was the phrase "related to" I believe. -- Evanx(tag?) 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: On the grounds that Dzonatas has made no effort to propose an acceptable permanent solution since the interim solution was instated and me being rather annoyed that the current template does not have an image I wil revert this template to the version which is supported by a large majority of the project members. —Ruud 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but this should not be a permanent solution. —Ruud 02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim measure 2 

message: Now that it's been 2 years since the last comment on the debate, can we now discuss getting some meaty description into the banner without prompting an edit war? It's patently absurd that people got that worked up over what is, in any case, fluff text. In the worst case, just copy the text from a sister project's banner. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you guys serious? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Compsci. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:Compsci" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Perhaps either shrink the flow-chart image which pointlessly wastes vertical space, or pick a different one. Even in the best case these WikiProject banners are absurdly space-wasting on talk pages (yay for the 'banner shell' I guess?) but the CS wikiproject one is one of the biggest entirely due to the extra-tall image. –jacobolus (t) 04:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this template use a smaller image?