Talk:List of important publications in computer science

message: I am amazed to see that there are only three PL works listed, and that they only go up to 1967.  I will attempt to rectify this in the near future.
mkehrt (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!--Tim32 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming Languages? 

message: Would the deterministic Primality test (which is not on this list as yet) not satisfy the criteria?203.200.95.130 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to be more specific. Which one? The Sieve of Eratosthenes?—greenrd (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess 203.200.95.130 meant the AKS primality test. This is indeed a breakthrough in algorithm design, in my humble opinion. Hermel (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primality Testing? 

message: Without getting into a debate about the inclusion of these "important publications" lists in Wikipedia, we do need to make this article more reliable. Most of the time, a publication with any degree of impact will be deemed that somewhere. Number of citations with respect to years since publication is one good assessor, and there are plenty of sites around that will rank the publications this way for you. When a publication is deemed a breakthrough, the Bible of whatever field, etc., it is mentioned in the first chapter or introductory material of other publications. For most of these older publications, they have been reprinted with a preface explaining the history and notability of the book (or whatever). Citations DO exist, and they are not hard to find. This list will always be subjective to some extent, but at least providing a reference for SOME of these will improve objectivity. —Skittleys (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely, some objective standard of sourcing "breakthrough" is needed. I have no idea what this criteria should be. Something along the lines of being mentioned in standard textbooks as the breakthrough paper would work. Merzul (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for SOME references... 

message: This list is missing Operating_Systems:_Design_and_Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. That's THE textbook on OS design. AM I missing something? -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 09:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should think it's a good idea to add it to the page. --SeyedKevin (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: [[Operating_Systems:_Design_and_Implementation]] 

message: Hi, I think "New Directions in cryptography" (W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman) is a quite important paper in cryptography, can someone include this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.20.39 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of important publications in networks and security. — Miym (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptography 

message: I would suggest we add a section of seminal papers about HCI to the topic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.104.253 (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Computer Interaction (HCI)? 

message: While this was "the rage" in 2005/2006, it is not considered a subfield of computer science in the way that Graphics or Compilers or any of the other headings is.
Also, the papers listed are not the most cited, missing the 2005 paper: Singh: Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns
Management Science 51(5), pp. 756–770, 2005. Robert.pless (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborative Networks? 

message: I would prefer not to alphabetize this page. The current ordering by date is better. Bayle Shanks (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that the point was to alphabetize the sections. I have done that and removed the tag. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't alphabetize 

message: A perennial issue on this and similar pages is how to set criteria for the list. I have carefully considered existing guidelines and tried to craft a broad set of policies that satisfy them. I have posted it on the Science pearls talk page. I would welcome your comments. Of course, these guidelines are not intended to be binding for any particular page, but might help you choose your own selection criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed selection criteria 

message: The references in /* Further reading */ are general references with the purpose of establishing the notability of the list. They seem like a good start. Cybercobra, why did you tag this section? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that the problem is the lack of a References section or citations. I have renamed the section, added citations and dropped the tag. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Further reading tagged? 

message: I have just done an experiment that illustrates the biggest problem with the current preferred format. I moved Machine learning inside Artificial intelligence, which is consistent with both Outline of computer science and Artificial intelligence. However, now the section head for Machine learning is on the same level as the other articles in Artificial intelligence because they get a subsection each. A system that is incompatible with a hierachical topic structure is seriously flawed! For an alternative approach, see Bibliography of biology and List of important publications in physics (the latter is not fully converted to the new format). If you would rather stick with the current format, feel free to undo my latest edit. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with this format 

message: There is no requirement that a WikiProject conform to the policies of any other WikiProject.  Therefore the statement that other WikiProjects rate the importance of lists is not relevant.  Ideogram (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Article statistics in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. Perhaps you should discuss this with the rest of your Wikiproject first. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists importance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of important publications in computer science. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125120159/http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/gold67limit.html to http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/gold67limit.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903014320/https://scholar.google.com/ to https://scholar.google.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of important publications in computer science. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525044658/http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/books/papers/124.pdf to http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/books/papers/124.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is just based on opinions on what is "important".    If the article were active, it inevitably would be a spamming target and a subject of unsolvable disputes and gaming  on what constitutes "important" and how (sources) one is determined to meet those qualifications.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep under Wikipedia:NOTOR#COMPILING.Even though the article is a bit messy I don't think it warrants deletion. It should be reworked to a more compact form IMO. Sources clarifying why & what is important of course should be given. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If that could actually happen it would be a useful article. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

text: How do you define what is "important" and what is not? WP:STANDALONE articles must also meet NPOV and be verifiable (WP:LISTVERIFY). --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: IMO this article should be deleted

message: I'm surprised to see that "Information management: A proposal", by Tim Berners-Lee, isn't here. The paper is the origin of the World Wide Web as we know it today; I believe it would be a relevant addition. I'm however not sure if it hasn't been added yet for a particular reason.
Skencer11 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Information management: A Proposal"