Talk:Software design pattern

delete

delete

Proactor

Should proactor be listed?

delegation pattern

has its own article, but not listed here?!

LivinGrimoire pattern: justification for inclusion

Here's the real issue:

Wikipedia’s culture often defaults to “if it’s not cited in a journal, it doesn’t exist.” But that mindset ignores:

Emerging patterns from real-world development Grassroots innovation from independent creators The fact that many design patterns—even widely accepted ones—originated as blog posts, open-source projects, or community ideas long before academia caught up LivinGrimoire is a software design pattern, and its inclusion in the Creational patterns section is justified by both its structure and its impact. It introduces a consistent pattern of modular skill integration using: brain.addSkill(new Skill());

This approach is replicated across 9 programming languages, enabling developers to copy-paste skill files and attach them to a central Brain object. The result is a clean, scalable architecture that: Eliminates spaghetti code Reduces code debt Packages logic into modular, reusable “skills” The pattern is extensively documented in 24 wiki pages on GitHub, covering its operation, APIs, examples, and implementation philosophy:

🔗 LivinGrimoire Wiki

I invite editors to review the documentation and discuss whether Wikipedia should continue to exclude innovative patterns simply because they haven't yet been formalized in academic literature. LivinGrimoire is already solving real-world problems—and that’s the very essence of a design pattern. Moti Barski (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to be a summary of what's in sources like journals and books. It isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. That we leave a few things out is expected and OK, and it will be the case for things like this one where no sources that meet our requirements exist. In short, we should not set aside the sourcing policies for this one thing. Perhaps this will prove to be something that software engineering journals and textbooks write about one day - Wikipedia can cover it then, we have no deadlines. MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of gatekeeping that keeps independent innovation out of Wikipedia. LivinGrimoire is a software design pattern by definition: it provides a general, reusable solution to recurring problems in software architecture—namely, spaghetti code, code debt, and modular logic packaging.

The pattern uses a consistent structure:

java

brain.addSkill(new Skill());

This is implemented across 9 programming languages, allowing developers to copy-paste skill files and attach them to a central Brain object. That’s not theory—it’s working code. It’s documented in 24 detailed wiki pages: 🔗

🔗 LivinGrimoire Wiki

You say Wikipedia summarizes journals and books. But many design patterns—like MVC, Singleton, and Factory—originated outside academic literature. They were adopted because they solved real problems. LivinGrimoire does the same.

If Wikipedia refuses to include patterns simply because journals won’t engage with non-academics, then it’s not documenting the field—it’s gatekeeping it. That’s not neutrality. That’s exclusion. Moti Barski (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of gatekeeping that keeps independent innovation out of Wikipedia - yes, that is because we want to keep independent innovation out of Wikipedia. We have a whole policy (at WP:NOR) which could be summarized as 'keep independent innovation out of Wikipedia'. You're arguing that we should change the whole character of the encyclopedia project. That's not going to happen on this article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re still avoiding the core issue: LivinGrimoire meets the definition of a software design pattern. It solves recurring architectural problems with a reusable structure, implemented across 9 programming languages. That’s not indiscriminate information—it’s documented, structured, and empirical.

Wikipedia’s sourcing policy should not override its purpose: to document knowledge. LivinGrimoire is knowledge. It’s not a fringe idea or a personal blog—it’s a working pattern solving real problems, backed by 24 wiki pages and public code.

If Wikipedia only includes patterns once journals decide to acknowledge them—while ignoring the fact that journals routinely exclude independent developers—then it’s not documenting the field. It’s documenting gatekeeping.

Design patterns are discovered in practice. LivinGrimoire is already in practice. If you want to argue it’s not notable, argue that. But don’t pretend it doesn’t meet the definition. The code is there. The structure is there. The documentation is there. That’s not indiscriminate. That’s a pattern. Moti Barski (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd like that to be the core issue, but the core issue actually is: does this proposed addition meet Wikipedia's requirements? And it clearly does not. What you are suggesting here is such a common misconception of what Wikipedia is for that we write about it at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

We won't move the goalposts to 'we will list any design pattern even without any independent sourcing' because no one wants this page to turn into a list of the 100s or 1000s of patterns that exist in a single blog post here or there. If you call that 'gatekeeping', so be it. MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the issue again. This isn't about changing Wikipedia’s character—it’s about applying its standards consistently. LivinGrimoire meets the definition of a software design pattern: it solves recurring architectural problems with a reusable structure, implemented across 9 programming languages. That’s not indiscriminate information—it’s documented, structured, and empirical.

Wikipedia’s own policies allow primary sources for descriptive facts. LivinGrimoire’s code and documentation are public, verifiable, and demonstrate the pattern in practice. It’s not a personal blog or speculative idea—it’s a working solution backed by 24 wiki pages and real-world usage.

If Wikipedia only includes patterns after journals decide to acknowledge them—while journals routinely exclude independent developers—then it’s not documenting the field. It’s documenting gatekeeping.

Design patterns are discovered in practice. LivinGrimoire is already in practice. The code is there. The structure is there. The documentation is there. Moti Barski (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I am disagreeing with you. If you read Wikipedia's sourcing policies and came away with the idea that using primary sources for this would be OK, you misread those policies. Ditto if you think that we'd treat self published wiki pages or documentation any differently than a self published blog post.

then it’s not documenting the field. It’s documenting gatekeeping. You keep copy and pasting this as though it is some powerful argument - but that is expressly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Since we are now just repeating ourselves, I don't plan to comment here again unless someone shows up with something new to say. Do not construe any silence from me as agreement with your points. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry @Moti Barski:, but MrOllie is 100 percent right and you are 100 percent wrong. Please read again the WP policies already mentioned. As of now, LivinGrimoire does not meet the requirements for inclusion in WP. and so it won't included. At this point, you have all the information that you need. So I suggest that move on. As mentioned, if that pattern gain recognition, independent sources will report on it and then, it can be included. --McSly (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ve escalated this discussion to WikiProject Software for broader input from editors specializing in software design patterns:

🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Request_for_input:_LivinGrimoire_pattern_inclusion_in_Software_design_pattern_article

LivinGrimoire meets the definition of a software design pattern and is empirically implemented across 9 programming languages. I welcome further perspectives from the community. Moti Barski (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, be ready to get disappointed. --McSly (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw this on the WikiProject Software talk page, and I can confirm that since no independent reliable published sources have been provided, then this does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The Wikipedia:No original research policy has already been pointed out about eight comments ago. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You're misapplying Wikipedia’s sourcing policy by treating it as a proxy for truth rather than a safeguard against unverifiable claims. WP:V and WP:NOR are designed to prevent speculation—not to exclude verifiable, empirical contributions simply because they originate outside traditional publishing.

LivinGrimoire is not original research in the sense Wikipedia prohibits. It’s not a theory, opinion, or analysis—it’s a documented, reproducible software architecture implemented across nine languages. The pattern is publicly demonstrated, its structure is consistent, and its behavior is observable. That’s verifiability in practice.

The mistake here is conflating “independent reliable sources” with “mainstream publishers.” Wikipedia’s policies do not require academic journals to validate every design pattern. They require that claims be backed by sources that are independent and reliable in context. In software, working code and public documentation are the most direct forms of evidence.

By insisting on academic gatekeeping, you're not enforcing policy—you’re distorting it. Wikipedia is not a journal index. It’s supposed to document knowledge, not wait for institutions to rubber-stamp it. LivinGrimoire is knowledge. It’s not indiscriminate—it’s structured, implemented, and solving real problems. That’s what a design pattern is. Moti Barski (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a machine built to protect its own gatekeepers. I submitted LivinGrimoire—a documented, reproducible design pattern implemented across nine languages. It fits the definition. It’s verifiable. It’s public. Yet moderators contort policy to benefit big tech, enforcing a publishing cartel where only corporate-backed or institutionally sanctioned ideas are allowed to exist.

You invoke “no original research” as a blanket rejection, but LivinGrimoire isn’t research—it’s architecture. It’s code. It’s the most empirical source there is. This isn’t about policy—it’s about power. The system you defend makes truth irrelevant unless it’s blessed by a publisher. That’s not documentation. That’s censorship.

This is Kafkaesque. I follow the rules, cite the policies, prove the facts—and still the door is slammed shut. Not because the machine is broken, but because it’s functioning exactly as designed: to keep independent developers out. Moti Barski (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

An encyclopedia isn't the place for your essay. Time to move on. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia was once a radical experiment in open knowledge—a place where independent thinkers, developers, and creators could document the world as it is, not just as institutions say it should be. But today, it’s a shadow of that vision.

The rejection of LivinGrimoire isn’t about policy—it’s about power. Wikipedia’s sourcing rules have been twisted into a form of corporate censorship, where only ideas rubber-stamped by publishers or backed by institutions are allowed to exist.

This is enshitification in action: the slow erosion of openness, replaced by gatekeeping, bureaucracy, and deference to corporate norms. LivinGrimoire is a documented, reproducible pattern solving real problems in software architecture. But because it wasn’t blessed by a journal, it’s dismissed.

Wikipedia now functions less like an encyclopedia and more like a compliance tool for institutional orthodoxy. It doesn’t document innovation—it waits for permission. That’s not neutrality. That’s stagnation.

If Wikipedia wants to remain relevant, it must stop outsourcing its legitimacy to publishers and start recognizing knowledge wherever it lives—in code, in practice, and in the minds of independent developers Moti Barski (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against you, and that means that it remains out. Posting a rant on the talk page and then edit warring is not going to get a mention of this into the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I am so happy the UK banned your corrupt site. let's hope other countries do the same Moti Barski (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, so to follow your own advice, I'm sure that was your last intervention in WP and that you have now quit this site forever. --McSly (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This reads very much like ChatGPT talking. Make your points yourself rather than getting an AI to do it for you. GraziePrego (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)