Talk:ACM SIGGRAPH

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Klbrain in topic Proposed merge

Merge

edit

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


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)Reply

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

Move

edit

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

edit

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Proposed merge

edit

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)Reply

@Steve Quinn: Exactly which references are you referring to? StrayBolt (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Closing, given the uncontested objection and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply