Talk:Computer: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer
(→‎question about microprocessor computing: digital revolution comment)
imported>Pat Palmer
(noting archive of applications)
Line 53: Line 53:


:Thanks!  I just did so.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 18:18, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks!  I just did so.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 18:18, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
==applications archived here temporarily==
I don't yet know where (if at all) to include [[Talk:Computer/Applications|this stuff]].

Revision as of 17:43, 23 April 2007


Article Checklist for "Computer"
Workgroup category or categories Computers Workgroup, History Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Markus Baumeister 06:38, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





archives of previous discussions

Discussion Archives
Archive 1, 4-23-07: Talk:Computer/Archive1
Archive 2, 4-23-07: Talk:Computer/Archive2
Archive 3, date-here Talk:Computer/Archive3


archived everything; starting over

I have archived previous discussions, since I totally reorganized Computer, sending most of the old stuff either to Computer architecture or to History of computing (new article).Pat Palmer 17:14, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

question about microprocessor computing

a rapid evolution can also be changed into revolution, and if we talk about microprocessor computing we do talk about the digital revolution. Any objection to changing that part? Robert Tito |  Talk  17:52, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but edit what you think best. I'd recommend avoiding getting too detailed about technology, however. Perhaps that discussion would belong better in history of computing, which hopefully will have a breakdown of developments by decade.Pat Palmer 17:57, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
P S - I wouldn't want to use a phrase like "digital revolution" without first explaining it. I think in terms of my grandmother--could she read what I wrote and get anything out of it? If not, it's too "jargony". That's my corny standard, anyways.Pat Palmer 18:19, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
the rapid change of society is called the digital revolution, sorry for anybody but that is the generally accepted term for tha]] |  Talk  18:23, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
OK; can we put the definition in parentheses right after the first occurence of the term?Pat Palmer 18:29, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
I reworded yours just a bit. Would you care to take a stab at writing digital revolution? Sounds like a complete article to me!Pat Palmer 18:34, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

why can't I mark this as NOT from Wikipedia?

When I uncheck the "from Wikipedia" on this article, it has no effect. This article is no longer anything like the original brought from Wikipedia. Someone please help!Pat Palmer 17:59, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Pat, Jason is one of the few that can change it. Send an e-mail to constables@citizendium.org with the request. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:06, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I just did so.Pat Palmer 18:18, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

applications archived here temporarily

I don't yet know where (if at all) to include this stuff.