Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science

I made a page about a computer scientist from Princeton. Added the tags. Feel free to add it to this project so people who are interested in the subject can improve it. Tri Dao I saw that you have a list of bios of computer scientists here. He needs to be added too. I was not sure how to do it. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Almost all sources in the references at Tri Dao are primary sources. Most of the sources are articles by Tri Dao himself. I haven't looked deep enough, but it seems likely that this article fails the notability guidelines for academics, and will be nominated for deletion soon. If you need more details, read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). You can ask questions here or at at the Teahouse. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Andrybak It is mostly research, and a few secondary links. Correct me if I am wrong, but this criteria is about the academics, right? WP:NACADEMIC The individual meets point 1. He is the creator of Mamba and FlashAttention. These credentials are not minor, but have a lot of influence in the field, and pages about them are made already. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think in this case the contribution is demonstrated sufficiently in reliable sources. If we address the point 1:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." It is not really a equation for the debate, but a fact that he created a deep learning architecture, and it is confirmed by his primarily scholarly work, and universities like Stanford and Princeton writing about it, along with the reputable peer reviewed journals in the field.

WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think in this case the contribution is demonstrated sufficiently in reliable sources which ones? and it is confirmed by his primarily scholarly work for the first criterion of WP:NACADEMIC to be met the article needs an independent, reliable source that demonstrates this fact.

Please take moment to learn what secondary sources are, find the best ones (the most independent and the most reliable), and avoid writing the article backwards. Sometimes, even with the best sources available, the subject might not be notable for Wikipedia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Andrybak What do you mean by "which ones?" in relation to the contributions? You can see that there are 2 separate Wikipedia pages created for his contributions specifically. Here is the main one - Mamba (deep learning architecture). There are many scholarly articles about this architecture he developed if you google it. In every article it is explicitly mentioned who developed the model. The fact of the contribution is not disputed in this case, he is the author of the architecture. I made changes to the article and added links after you made the comment. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add @PopoDameron to the discussion, as he created the article about Mamba and it seems topics like that are their interest. Do you have any thoughts on this? I am figuring out what is the best way to describe that this is a meaningful contribution with significant impact in the field that the person made. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Mamba, and probably even more so Flash Attention, are highly notable and pervasive in machine learning. That seems indeed to imply that their creator is also notable by WP:NACADEMIC. @andrybak, is there a reason for this not to be the case by that basis?

For independent sources on Mamba, check out the references used in that article. They may be a little out of date though, so you can also verify the work's impact by sampling papers on Google Scholar (the original paper has 7k+ citations). popodameron ⁠talk 08:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@PopoDameron, I agree with your arguments and I have of the same opinion on it. It is certainly not the page about unknown associate professor at Princeton, and his contributions in the field are widely recognized. I am not sure what else needs to be confirmed and sourced in this case. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Smoothsort needs a reliable source about its stability (or lack of it). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The article on web development is currently in a very sorry state, and is in dire need of attention. I plan to improve and expand it over the next few days, and I invite anyone else to help me! I've created a list of potentially useful sources at User:GearsDatapack/Sources#Web development, and you can discuss changes and improvements on the talk page. Thank you! {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 17:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Margaret Mitchell (scientist) article. DrThneed (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I just added sources and performed some copy-editing on reconvergent fan-out, and would like someone more experienced in computer science to review it. Before I made my edits, certain sections of the article were phrased with second-person pronouns. The article appeared to describe the same concepts, but in a way that was non-standard. I'd like to make sure I didn't introduce any errors with my edits.

Thanks in advance for the help. SenshiSun (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anthropic#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Algorithmic bias has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)