Talk:Topcoder

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on October 26, 2018. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{Copy edit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Merge proposal

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

I put the stub message on this page because I thought it was incomplete and needed some work, but... Decumanus (Talk) (-{{stu|3}} not a stub). I guess he/she thought that since there were already a number of paragraphs here, it wasn't a stub. Is it ok for me to put the stub message on the page again?

I don't think this article adheres to the quality standards imposed/expected by Wikipedia. I am going to put {Cleanup} until then...

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing - but I made some effort to clean up this article (added section breaks, some more info on the varying types of competition, and some organization). Hopefully it helps. -jmzero

I'm removing codejam from tournaments because google has deployed their own system for codejam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MahasonaLK (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Needs a criticisms section to have any appearance of objectivity.

I guess it would be easier to add one if it wasn't for the fact it is incredibly difficult to find objective criticism about topcoder. In fact, I think that just putting a criticism section in this case would be the opposite of being objective. The most I could find was a slashdot article about crowdsourcing in which some slashdot kids complained about it. Then we have http://amplicate.com/hate/topcoder in which some guys are venting frustration after losing or complaining about technical issues during contests in which they participated, but 9 opinions out of thousands active coders seems too small... If you wish to have an objective criticism section, a good start would be to begin by giving us a pointer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.71.220 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

TopCoder does not support Python in Algorithm Matches. Python is supported in Marathon Matches, and in the Google Code Jams of the past. Will someone change that, or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.36 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No you are not missing anything. In Algorithm Matches Python is not available as an option for coding. It is availble in Marathon Matches, thus I am removing it from the Algorithms section. --62.241.151.161 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now, Topcoder allows Python in all matches. I've just tested it. --Etrebil (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Topcoder Open is not independently notable and thus should not have its own list. Previous arguments against a redirect have boiled down to WP:OTHERSTUFF. This merge should be done as alternative to outright deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we start with merging Google Code Jam into Google, Facebook Hacker Cup into Facebook? Apparently, by Wikipedia guidelines, those are even less notable events than Topcoder Open: while Topcoder Open page has some references to news and other sources not directly related to organizers, those don't.

On a more serious notes, although there is not much exclusive reports about Topcoder Open in big international medias (but the same is true for many other events having individual pages at Wikipedia), you can check that there are plenty references to Topcoder Open in variety of sources completely independent from Topcoder, including many other Wikipedia articles. I underline, they refer not to the Topcoder (company), but specifically to Topcoder Open championship.

Part of the problem is that WP:NSPORTS misses Competitive Programming as sport discipline, thus you are trying to argue about notability of Topcoder Open according to generic event notability guidelines, rather than on sport event notability guidelines. Birdofpreyru (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Birdofpreyru: IF you want to make an argument about WP:OTHERSTUFF doing so there is what I would suggest. In my mind this about assessing the notability of Topcoder Open. I think you bring up an interesting point about WP:NSPORTS but it's important to remember that WP:SNG are suppposed to be shortcuts for, not replacements of WP:GNG and so there's no real "loss" by talking about the open in the context of GNG.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Closed, given the lack of support, policy argument against and that the discussion is stale. Klbrain (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have cleaned up a lot of "cite bombing" (excessive overusage of redundant citations) throughout the article. For common statements 1-2 reliable sources are perfectly sufficient (ideally independent expert sources). Self-published sources can occasionally be used, but not when better sources exist or half the article depends on them (see also WP:RS and WP:SPS). Any claim of success, quality, importance, etc. must be based on an independent reliable source - occasional self-published sources are only acceptable for absolutely uncontroversial, non-promotional details. The spamming of numerous backlinks to the organization's PR publications, forums and campaign sites is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The article needs further cleanup of remaining similar issues throughout. The usage of such sources should be reduced and/or replaced with independent reliable sources where needed. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply