Talk:List of computer scientists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case the wording at the top of this list is not strong enough, this list should be for research scientists, not anybody with a CS degree and not random progammers. They should also be notable - either a mile-long list of CS publications and/or a significant accomplishment, although the accomplishment can be non-computer-science related, for instance a memorable quote, best-selling SF books, longest motorcycle jump, etc.

I don't think a strong argument could be made that G�del was a computer scientist (any more so than Georg Cantor or David Hilbert). Someone want to prove me wrong with a reference? Chadloder 06:55 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

On first glance I would agree with you. --Robert Merkel

I added Herman Hollerith who was not a research scientist at all; but his work on punched card machines was an important (perhaps the only) step between Babbage & Lovelace before him and the theoretical work and analogue computers that came after him. --Sewing 18:12, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Euler, Hertz, and Leibniz were computer scientists? Huh? If I'm just overreacting, let me know, but I think these should be removed Dysprosia 23:20, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Mathematicians specializing on computation theory can be "honorary computer scientists" :-) , like Boole and Church, but the list should be really really short. Stan 05:06, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Disagree. Computer Science exists for some hundred years, even though it was not called CS in those days. Graph theorie is one of the most important parts of CS and exists just because of Euler. Leibniz was specialised in computing machines. Of course he is "computer scientist". In case of Hertz, he is more an engineer than an computer scientist. 82.82.128.94 14:28, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Per Brinch-Hansen" is listed. "Brinch Hansen", not "Brinch-Hansen", is his surname, per book he wrote around 1970. (Someone may want to think about the overall approach of the list; my edit is the best way i can come up with for handling within this format.) --Jerzy 05:49, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Linus

I don't think Linus really qualifies as a computer scientist, since I don't think he's done any research. He's already on the programmers lists, that should be good enough. Stan 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delinking annotations

While annotations on the list are good reminders of who's who when you're looking for someone, I don't think there's much need to link all the terms in the annotation lines. They aren't that useful, because the bios have that, and it means that the "what links here" for every major topic includes this list, irrelevant at best. Stan 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who is 'junrex gonzales'?

I noticed that this name is in lower case and was about to change it to title case, but decided to double check it first. I did a Google search and can find no evidence of the existance of this computer scientist. Maybe the name here is spelt differently to his actual name. Does anyone know who he is or is this name a spam addition to the article? Big Mac 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted junrex as a suspected hoax. -David Schaich 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red-linked names

I'm going to assume that like most wikipedia lists, we don't want items in the list until they've been shown to be notable enough to have an article to link to. That is, this list should not be the place for notability decisions. So I'm taking out the red-linked individuals. Dicklyon 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)