Talk:Object-oriented analysis and design

Don't Merge with Booch Method

The Booch method is a particular OOA&D technique. There are many more, such as OMT and Objectory, both of which have their own articles. I believe it's a separate entry Mjchonoles 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be merged into here as well. Can you remember any more? They're all stubs and it's highly doubtful they will ever be significantly expanded. Booch Method, et. al. are little more than historical footnotes at this point, yes? Should Object modeling language be merged into here, into Modeling language, or as part of a history section of Unified Modeling Language. Ewlyahoocom 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these techniques deserve its own article. The fact that they are currently stubs does not mean they won't or should not be expanded. Compare the list of programming languages. Should they all be merged into Programming language? RayGates 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if they've been stubs for a long time and have little chance of ever being expanded then they should definately be merged -- although Programming language probably isn't the best choice. Then again this page isn't exactly Software engineering. Ewlyahoocom 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty convinced that they are signiifcantly different and don't belong together. While they can link to each other, the other techniques should be expanded. The concepts of these are quite different and they would be confusing in a single article.

The real problem here is no one appears to be willing to put any content into this article. Almost all the potential candidates for merging have descendants that are still practised to this date and should not be merged.

Modeling Languages are seperate problem. While many of the methods/techniques identified here had their own modeling language when first constructed, they mostly use UML today. However, there are other modeling languages, some related to UML and many not, that need their own articles. Mjchonoles

Do you think we should have a different page for each kind of buggy whip that was once in popular use? They're not all the same, you know. How about the stirrup? Ewlyahoocom 18:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't use them, doesn't mean that they're not in use. I can't see why you're so aggressie about this. I'd recommend that this page should be deleted as it has no content and it only refers to other pages. Perhaps it should be a category. If it had content, then we could figure out if the other ones belonged here. Mjchonoles 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wanted to read about this topic. Later, I found I had a slew of open windows yet was none-the-wiser. Aggressie would have been merging the pages without consulting you. Ewlyahoocom 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be merged or expanded as, it is very messy and all over the place. Vec 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage Merge

Merging as a policy should be rejected. It runs against general Wikipedia Article Length Policy. It is a better editorial practice to arrange "knowledge" in smaller modules/units. Further, in the future, the Target Merge article will be too lengthy to be manageable.Connection 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An overview and links to other articles is a better arrangement.Connection 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shlaer-Mellor merge

Personally I feel that these articles shouldn't be merged. Is there anyone here who wants to give reasoning as to why they should be? GeorgeBills 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]