Talk:Front controller

One might argue that this topic properly belongs in an article about J2EE design patterns - one which I am barely qualified to author. Dmforcier (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Limiting examples?

Moved from User talk:Ekerazha

 – Ekerazha (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why pull the references from Front Controller pattern page? Dmforcier (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the referenced articles were removed. In such a case, remove the article reference but leave the name of the framework. It was the article that went away, not the framework. Dmforcier (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If the framework is not notable it shouldn't be mentioned, that's spam. What about if everyone adds his own framework to the list? Ekerazha (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who made you the big spam sheriff of the house? Get off your high horse and follow procedure. If a page is subject to deletion it should be voted on. If you think a reference is spam, say so on the talk page. Don't just take it upon yourself to decide what is important and what isn't. Dmforcier (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, there's also speedy deletion and prod. However, the articles related to that stuff have been deleted through AfD because they're not notable, live with it. As per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.", while your stuff is related to content without reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:GNG and it has been deleted through Afd (WP:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Fat-Free_Framework, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Kumbia_PHP_Framework) because it's not encyclopedic, so that stuff should be removed. Ekerazha (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The notability guideline actually doesn't apply to article content, only article inclusion. The third paragraph of the lead section of the guideline says so explicitly. The closest thing we have to a guideline that would cover the inclusion/exclusion of such material within an article is WP:HTRIVIA, which is an essay (although an often-cited one). If the inclusion of information in an article is trivial; in other words, not important to the article, it probably shouldn't be included. That might apply to the inclusion of non-notable examples of software in a subject like this one, or it might not.

The only way to truly decide whether or not the information should be included is through consensus. Basically, Ekerazha, you have to convince Dmforcier that it's inappropriate to include that information. Or, Dmforcier, you have to convince Ekerazha that the information should be included. You can also compromise, such as coming up with a way to determine what software should be listed in the article. If you can't come to an agreement between the two of you, there are a number of dispute resolution methods that can be employed. In this case, a third opinion might be helpful. Unfortunately there is no "rule" that determines whether either of you are correct here. The only policy that I think applies to your dispute at the moment is WP:EW, which means you shouldn't be reverting each other the way you were before. You've now stopped that behavior, and you're discussing the topic, which is exactly what should be done.

My suggestion is to move this discussion to the article's talk page, so that anyone else working on the article now or in the future might see what was discussed regarding its contents. That will also make things much easier if you do decide to pursue some sort of dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The advice and policy citations are much appreciated. Thanks. In this case what is in dispute is merely a list of real-world frameworks that implement the pattern. I'm not invested in any of them (they may or may not belong), but I object to the assumption that if something doesn't merit an article, then it can't be mentioned. And also the practice of modding without discussion. I'll move henceforth to the discussion pages. Dmforcier (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, what about if everybody adds his own framework to the list? That's not really intelligent. Also, I think WP:WEIGHT (that I already mentioned) could be applied here. Also, the first who "modded" the article was the one who added that non-notable items. Ekerazha (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be a bad thing? Shouldn't such a list tend to err on the side of completeness? It's not like anyone is extolling a framework's virtues. That might be spam. But this is is merely an acknowledgment that the framework exists. No way I can consider that spam. Now let's hear some other opinions, shall we? Dmforcier (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem would be creep and bloat; creep as entries creep in one after another, and bloat as the article gets to an unmanageable size. Even before you reach that point you would have a situation where the "examples" section takes up most of the article, which would just make this a poor article (imagine if the article about shoes had a brief introduction then was a long page listing every shoe manufacturer on the planet, past and present). When you set no standards at all for inclusion then it's almost inevitable. I'm sure there are a countless number of frameworks at Sourceforge and elsewhere and listing them all would be impractical. Declaring that a framework can't be included unless it has an article on Wikipedia that can be linked to would be an easy way to restrict the list, but not necessary. Certainly there's some other metric that could be picked to determine what should and shouldn't be included? -- Atama頭 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[pretend this is indented] As I said, I'm not qualified to judge whether the frameworks in question merit inclusion. Care to cast the deciding vote? Dmforcier (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Example of what would happen Model–view–controller#Implementations_of_MVC_as_web-based_frameworks (and things could get worse), where everyone spams his own framework. Ekerazha (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't consider your example particularly objectionable, provided that all the items are real. IMO this is a great use of Wikipedia - as a collation point for examples of some (not all) topics. This is not something you're likely to find anywhere else on the web (unlike Shoes ;) ). No, it's not a function served by traditional encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is something new, after all.

I do understand your desire to maintain a certain level of credibility for the list contents, and notability (as in articles) is an easy way to do it. But as you know I think that is too limiting. Perhaps a different criterion could apply - if an example doesn't have an article to reference (for whatever reason), then require an accessible external reference. That would allow users to easily evaluate the merits and keep vaporware out altogether. (With that in mind I'm going to add {{citation needed}} tags to the two examples in question.)

Or just leave it open. I don't consider a few questionable examples to be a significant problem. Certainly not in this article, eh? Dmforcier (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia and that's not the the purpose of Wikipedia, see WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful.") and WP:WEIGHT ("An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources."). AfD established there are not reliable sources for the products you "defend", so their weight is zero, they violate WP:WEIGHT and they shouldn't be listed. If everybody adds his own framework (or his own shoes) it's the end. Ekerazha (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain about AfD. I wasn't in on any debate that may have taken place re: article notability. What do you think about the external link idea? Dmforcier (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at these: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumbia_PHP_Framework, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Fat-Free_Framework. I think the "external link idea" doesn't solve the problem, the problem is that those products are not notable, they lack reliable sources and they shouldn't be mentioned because their weight is zero. Ekerazha (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked. I don't agree. KumbiaPHP has been a sourceforge project for 3+ years, now released. google hits ~125,000, including several apparently intelligent reviews. PHP Fat-Free is much more recent at sourceforge, yet has 51,000 hits. Maybe they don't rate an article, but they're real products. I think you're trying to maintain your "no article, no mention" principle which Atama shot down above. Dmforcier (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourceforge (I've a project on sourceforge too), google hits, personal reviews etc. don't make them notable (see WP:GNG, WP:ATA, WP:NOT) and this is why their articles were deleted (through AfD). It's not "my principle", they are not notable (and AfD established this) so WP:WEIGHT says that their weight is zero and they must not be mentioned. Ekerazha (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)