Talk:ACM SIGGRAPH

Merge

I don't see the reason for merging ACM SIGGRAPH (the academic organization) with SIGGRAPH (the annual conference put on by ACM SIGGRAPH).

• I agree, and removed the merge tag since the person who left it did not leave an explanation. He is welcome to comment here. — brighterorange (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "ACM SIGGRAPH" and not "ACM SICGRAPH" in the following? The reference leads to "SIGGRAPH" Ziquemu (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(its direct predecessor, ACM SICGRAPH was founded two years earlier in 1967).[1]

Move

Please comment at my move proposal on Talk:SIGGRAPH. —Tobias Bergemann 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACM SIGGRAPH. 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/20120103093610/http://www.siggraph.org:80/resources/international to http://www.siggraph.org/resources/international

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge

SIGGRAPH is the annual meeting of ACM SIGGRAPH. Both articles are fairly short and there's significant overlap. The most logical thing to do would be to merge the two into an article that is a bit meatier. --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge there aren't independently notable. The conference should be a section of ACM SIGGRAPH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge although I prefer to AfD this - especially after all the grief caused by obnoxious editor(s) on the SIGGRAPH talk page. The first set of references appear to be home made graphs on a computer. These are not acceptable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply Exactly which references are you referring to? StrayBolt (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both are notable on their own. The articles were longer until about 3/4 was removed. Some has been added back. The correct thing to do is not delete text, but improve it. Wikipedia:Article size says the 1-40KB range is generally okay. StrayBolt (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to major contributors Template:Ping Who else should be notified who hasn't already posted, isn't an IPAddr, hasn't been blocked, is still active,…? StrayBolt (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)