Talk:GAMESS (US)

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging GAMESS (US), GAMESS (UK) and PC GAMESS

Currently these three forks of the code base are struggling to have enough independent coverage to prove notability. I suggest that they be merged together (and maybe moved to GAMESS), to consolidate their notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the forks are a long time ago and the three programs are very different. I use both GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK) extensively. The latter is now totally different from the former. Indeed it is more like the ATMOL program than the HONDO program that the original GAMESS grew out of. I know of no sources for the pre-fork GAMESS. The fork was decades ago. PC GAMESS forked from GAMESS (US) more recently, but it now so different that it has been renamed to "Firefly". That article should in fact be moved to Firefly (Computer program). For these reasons I oppose the merge. I understand the concerns, and will look for more sources. GAMESS (US), in particular, is widely cited in the scientific literature. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging these makes about as much sense as merging all articles about people who have the first name Robert. "They have a similar name and is any one Bob really notable, so...." AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both US and UK are among the "most cited" AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone in favor of this? If not, it should be closed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]