The contents of the Big ball of mud page were merged into Anti-pattern on 27 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Big ball of mud was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Anti-pattern. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anti-pattern article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Many of the listed items are not anti patterns, but valid operating models within some commercial frameworks. For instance, a Business may decide to "Cash Cow" a product, deciding to return significant short term financial benefits rather than go for high risk, low reward long term profits. Also, many of the anti-patterns described are contradictory ("Big Ball of Mud" vs "Over Engineering"), and described outside the commercial environment that drives the decisions. These are not anti patterns, they are life..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 ( talk) 02:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest and Anti pattern that captures the concept that not everything that is done badly has to be called an anti pattern and be given a name. More often than not, its Just Another Piece Of Crappy Code pattern, or the "Gotta Give It A Name" pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 ( talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add a section on User Interface antipatterns and "Dark Patterns" (purposefully bad UI design intended to trick users). That OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybr ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Also, the article suggests dark patterns are an alternative name for antipatterns. If you Google the term "Dark Pattern" you'll see this isn't accurate.
The term anti-pattern is a neologism inspired by a particular book ( WP:COI?). The phrase seems to have other meanings (see Other uses below) and its usage in this case is obscure. And the article seems to be mostly an unsourced collection of Dilbert-style grumbles. The more common phrase for this concept is bad habit so I'm going to be bold and move to that title. Under the new title, the concept will be more generally useful. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's done. Rewriting the article will take some time and there may be some opposition so I'll leave it at that for now. More anon. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the course of checking this neologism, I find that it is used in computer science with a different sense to the current Dilbertisms. See, for example, Anti-pattern Matching in which the usage seems more sensible. The term pattern is a long-standing one in computer science which conforms to general usage. Trying to use the term to also mean methodology, practise or style is confusing and unnecessary. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
“ | Milk Monitor Promotion: A pseudo promotion (a better sounding title), with no additional responsibilities or pay increase, which is given as a quick and costless way to make the employee work harder. | ” |
In the long run, are the results negative to either organization or an employee? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this sourced? While the multiple-copies-of-one-library thinking may be an example of an anti-pattern, is the "Hell" part? Surely that's the outcome, rather than the rationale? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A specific Mushroom Management pattern is when managers mutually refer to each other when giving informing on decisions and responsibility to employees of a lower rank. The manager supposedly responsible, is typically not present or available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.162.59.125 ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the Organisational and Project Management sections be removed entirely. Each example doesn't demonstrate a pattern - just bad practice or bad habit. Surely to be a pattern (or anti-pattern) then it needs to be repeatable in a systematic way. Also, I still regard "patterns" and hence "anti-patterns" to be specifically IT software development related. For me the Organisation and PM sections don't really belong here as examples. Agree / disagree ??? Liassic ( talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Found the sentence "Often pejoratively named with clever oxymoronic neologisms, many anti-pattern ideas amount to little more than mistakes, rants, unsolvable problems, or bad practices to be avoided if possible. " to be a classic example of an anti-pattern. Thanks! haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.26.146 ( talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article rated as Top importance for the Computer Science wikiproject? Is it really at the same level as Graph Theory, Sorting algorithm, P vs NP, Donald Knuth or Operating System? I'm demoting it to Medium. Diego ( talk) 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[New guy here - please be gentle :-)]
Just wanted to suggest that the entry under "Project Management Anti-patterns > Waterfall Model" appears to violate both NPOV and lack of citation.
Original entry (diff) could still use a citation, but isn't quite so egregiously biased. Thoughts? TheOnlyCueball ( talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the waterfall model belongs here, (I'm working in Agile), the waterall model is fairly well established, and is generally successsful citation needed-- Oxinabox ( talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal with the anti agile comments in the article? i dont think its the appropriate place for this nonsense
"but is far more robust than so called agile methods which are a trial and error approach to software development that ignores any a priori systems architecture thus leading to unintended consequences."
"Programming by permutation (or "programming by accident"): Trying to approach a solution by successively modifying the code to see if it works. This is the essence of the agile approach. "
I agree, Test Driven Design, as a bad thing? -- Oxinabox ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not 100% sure of the terminology, the pokemon anti-pattern does exist. It's bad practice to catch every single error, you should only catch the relevant ones and allow the language framework to throw any other further up for analysis and handling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.108.101 ( talk) 08:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
How can we begin to improve our definition of Anti-pattern?
I see we found outside sources for our: An anti-pattern (or antipattern) is a pattern used in social or business operations or software engineering that may be commonly used but is ineffective and/or counterproductive in practice.
I see En.wiktionary.org offers us the more cogent: (software engineering) A design pattern that may be commonly used but is ineffective and/or counterproductive in practice.
In my own world I'd more likely say: A familiar, convenient, intuitive, natural, popular way of overwhelming yourself with complexities of your own making, like shooting your self in the foot
How can we even begin to ask a tool like Google where the original research on this is?
Pelavarre ( talk) 20:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I ask this as a spiritual person who thinks this is a very interesting question. It seems when humans try to speak for God and shape their actions and behaviors on what they believe to be God's rules and use this to create formalized inflexible protocols for every situation they encounter, much good appears to come from it initially. Over time, things degenerate as God's actual intentions for particular situations that arise (especially as society and culture changes) cannot be acted upon because they come in conflict with the established rules and protocols of the organized religion. People get burned by this, then hate God without realizing that they should be hating organized religion instead. In the absence of God, morals degenerate and the very things that organized religion was trying to help, ultimately brings much harm. (It looks like much thought about anti-pattern can take place outside the field of computer science.) DavidPesta ( talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Which book are you referring to when you say "try reading the book"? Also, if the linked page analysis paralysis is wrong in its software development section, you should probably correct that first, because this article should just give a brief one-sentence summary of that article - it's more important that that article be right. Finally, it makes no sense to take about the "analysis phase" of an agile project which doesn't have phases.-- greenrd ( talk) 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As the book AntiPatterns is already mentioned in the lead paragraph, the hatnote constitutes overlinking and possibly legitimate article content that does not belong in a hatnote. Is any of this a valid reason to remove the hatnote? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 03:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Recommend adding this, as it's a well known anti-pattern on javascript. ref: http://callbackhell.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.33.111 ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The Builder pattern is cited as being a software design solution to the "telescoping constructor anti-pattern that occurs when the increase of object constructor parameter combination leads to an exponential list of constructors." Also discussed here. SteveChervitzTrutane ( talk) 05:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems like Rube Goldberg machine could qualify as an anti-pattern, with the antidote being Occam's razor. This anti-pattern could be applicable to either organizational or engineering realms. SteveChervitzTrutane ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The article starts out by defining "anti-pattern" in a meaningful way. It's a common solution to a problem, where the solution is worse than the problem. Multiple other sites give similar definitions.
But then it lists a ton of things that don't remotely meet this definition.
I could go on, but I really don't feel like it. 69.28.44.248 ( talk) 00:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The recent deletion of ALL of the examples of anti-pattern by /info/en/?search=User:Drmies seems to be counter-productive to the overall goals of Wikipedia. P.S. Here is a scholarly law journal reference for armed self defense: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc It is one of very many, even if you disagree with the facts they document. I was going to add the reference, but you deleted the entire section of examples before I could. P.P.S. If armed self-defense is a bad thing, then Ukraine should not hand out machine guns to civilians and instead simply surrender to Russia and turn over the country to Putin. I'm sure you will delete this entire comment, since you disagree with it.
P.P.P.S. If you disagree with my edit, then please delete it, but not the entire section. Also it's not ok for you to cancel/disappear my edits simply because they disagree with your personal political views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.S. Gutenberg ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Ineffablebookkeeper did a pretty good job explaining some of the problems here; I'll just say that your edit, and the complaint here, makes me think I dropped into a Facebook thread. Drmies ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)While often well-intentioned, by definition gun control affects only the law-abiding, reducing their self-defense rights against crime, while criminals ignore it and continue to abuse guns to harm their victims. Gun control is not crime control and may have the unintended consequence of increasing crime since it makes law-abiding victims defenseless against crime. In contrast, armed self-defense by the law-abiding has repeatedly been proven to be the safest and most effective means of self-defense against crime, as measured in government-sponsored criminology research.
My first concern with this edit is that it was by somebody who was not invested in maintaining this article. There was already an agreement in place amongst its typical curators that nothing is added to the list unless it warrants its own separate page on Wikipedia. This ensured that at a minimum, every item in the list had atleast some review, at some point, from an encyclopedic standard. A more appropriate action would have been to remove items from the list whose pages did not meet the citation standard (and probably delete - or atleast RFD those).
Secondly, I take some exception to saying that lists inside of encyclopedias are trash cans. Perhaps in some very specific scenarios, this is true. However any quick glance through any reputable encyclopedia will reveal that there are valid and consistent use of lists where neccesary and in obvious context. It had to be obvious from the traffic that this the go-to list of commonly referred to anti pattern examples on the internet.
That leads to another concern about the somewhat condescending link to the history now replacing what was previously a relatively well-curated page. No common user is going to going into the talk page or the history. If they are looking for examples, now they must (and WILL) look somewhere else.
On that point, I notice that the user who made this edit didn't bother go through and clean up any of the other 'trash can' lists that are on the non-English sites. Japanese, Polish, Spanish, German, French, etc... all have such lists. And many of those pages are in much worse shape than this page ever was, having red-links sprinkled throughout and no source references whatsoever.
I'm tempted to revert this edit on the basis that atleast I've been one of the active curators who has actively participated in the upkeep of this page. If someone can point me to a valid reference suggesting that lists are now somehow invalid in encyclopedic content (not Wikipedia, which clearly does not say such a thing: WP:SOURCELIST, but in general), I'll consider holding off. At a minimum, such a massive change should be discussed with those of us who taken the time over the years keep this article in decent shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 ( talk • contribs)
The huge list of original research you are curating is not in the best interest of the project; we are not a webhost for lists of examples. What happens on other wikis is not our concern. That long list had only a few sources, and many of them were simply not acceptable--this is a website whose authority is unproven, this is even less authoritative and seems like a hobbyist's site, this might be something but it begs the question of what this list is, and this is just a blog. There are two more citations, to books--but one of those, for the Peter principle, is clearly not a secondary source. So, no, "lists" aren't inherently anti-encyclopedic, but this list of examples is of no encyclopedic value, and is woefully undersourced--undercurated, one might say. If you want to improve the article, improve the article. One could start with that "Project management anti-patterns", which seems to elevate the status of one particular book to an unacceptable level.
The contents of the Big ball of mud page were merged into Anti-pattern on 27 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Big ball of mud was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Anti-pattern. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anti-pattern article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Many of the listed items are not anti patterns, but valid operating models within some commercial frameworks. For instance, a Business may decide to "Cash Cow" a product, deciding to return significant short term financial benefits rather than go for high risk, low reward long term profits. Also, many of the anti-patterns described are contradictory ("Big Ball of Mud" vs "Over Engineering"), and described outside the commercial environment that drives the decisions. These are not anti patterns, they are life..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 ( talk) 02:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest and Anti pattern that captures the concept that not everything that is done badly has to be called an anti pattern and be given a name. More often than not, its Just Another Piece Of Crappy Code pattern, or the "Gotta Give It A Name" pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.109.206 ( talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add a section on User Interface antipatterns and "Dark Patterns" (purposefully bad UI design intended to trick users). That OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybr ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Also, the article suggests dark patterns are an alternative name for antipatterns. If you Google the term "Dark Pattern" you'll see this isn't accurate.
The term anti-pattern is a neologism inspired by a particular book ( WP:COI?). The phrase seems to have other meanings (see Other uses below) and its usage in this case is obscure. And the article seems to be mostly an unsourced collection of Dilbert-style grumbles. The more common phrase for this concept is bad habit so I'm going to be bold and move to that title. Under the new title, the concept will be more generally useful. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's done. Rewriting the article will take some time and there may be some opposition so I'll leave it at that for now. More anon. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In the course of checking this neologism, I find that it is used in computer science with a different sense to the current Dilbertisms. See, for example, Anti-pattern Matching in which the usage seems more sensible. The term pattern is a long-standing one in computer science which conforms to general usage. Trying to use the term to also mean methodology, practise or style is confusing and unnecessary. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
“ | Milk Monitor Promotion: A pseudo promotion (a better sounding title), with no additional responsibilities or pay increase, which is given as a quick and costless way to make the employee work harder. | ” |
In the long run, are the results negative to either organization or an employee? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this sourced? While the multiple-copies-of-one-library thinking may be an example of an anti-pattern, is the "Hell" part? Surely that's the outcome, rather than the rationale? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A specific Mushroom Management pattern is when managers mutually refer to each other when giving informing on decisions and responsibility to employees of a lower rank. The manager supposedly responsible, is typically not present or available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.162.59.125 ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the Organisational and Project Management sections be removed entirely. Each example doesn't demonstrate a pattern - just bad practice or bad habit. Surely to be a pattern (or anti-pattern) then it needs to be repeatable in a systematic way. Also, I still regard "patterns" and hence "anti-patterns" to be specifically IT software development related. For me the Organisation and PM sections don't really belong here as examples. Agree / disagree ??? Liassic ( talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Found the sentence "Often pejoratively named with clever oxymoronic neologisms, many anti-pattern ideas amount to little more than mistakes, rants, unsolvable problems, or bad practices to be avoided if possible. " to be a classic example of an anti-pattern. Thanks! haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.26.146 ( talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article rated as Top importance for the Computer Science wikiproject? Is it really at the same level as Graph Theory, Sorting algorithm, P vs NP, Donald Knuth or Operating System? I'm demoting it to Medium. Diego ( talk) 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[New guy here - please be gentle :-)]
Just wanted to suggest that the entry under "Project Management Anti-patterns > Waterfall Model" appears to violate both NPOV and lack of citation.
Original entry (diff) could still use a citation, but isn't quite so egregiously biased. Thoughts? TheOnlyCueball ( talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the waterfall model belongs here, (I'm working in Agile), the waterall model is fairly well established, and is generally successsful citation needed-- Oxinabox ( talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal with the anti agile comments in the article? i dont think its the appropriate place for this nonsense
"but is far more robust than so called agile methods which are a trial and error approach to software development that ignores any a priori systems architecture thus leading to unintended consequences."
"Programming by permutation (or "programming by accident"): Trying to approach a solution by successively modifying the code to see if it works. This is the essence of the agile approach. "
I agree, Test Driven Design, as a bad thing? -- Oxinabox ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not 100% sure of the terminology, the pokemon anti-pattern does exist. It's bad practice to catch every single error, you should only catch the relevant ones and allow the language framework to throw any other further up for analysis and handling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.108.101 ( talk) 08:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
How can we begin to improve our definition of Anti-pattern?
I see we found outside sources for our: An anti-pattern (or antipattern) is a pattern used in social or business operations or software engineering that may be commonly used but is ineffective and/or counterproductive in practice.
I see En.wiktionary.org offers us the more cogent: (software engineering) A design pattern that may be commonly used but is ineffective and/or counterproductive in practice.
In my own world I'd more likely say: A familiar, convenient, intuitive, natural, popular way of overwhelming yourself with complexities of your own making, like shooting your self in the foot
How can we even begin to ask a tool like Google where the original research on this is?
Pelavarre ( talk) 20:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I ask this as a spiritual person who thinks this is a very interesting question. It seems when humans try to speak for God and shape their actions and behaviors on what they believe to be God's rules and use this to create formalized inflexible protocols for every situation they encounter, much good appears to come from it initially. Over time, things degenerate as God's actual intentions for particular situations that arise (especially as society and culture changes) cannot be acted upon because they come in conflict with the established rules and protocols of the organized religion. People get burned by this, then hate God without realizing that they should be hating organized religion instead. In the absence of God, morals degenerate and the very things that organized religion was trying to help, ultimately brings much harm. (It looks like much thought about anti-pattern can take place outside the field of computer science.) DavidPesta ( talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Which book are you referring to when you say "try reading the book"? Also, if the linked page analysis paralysis is wrong in its software development section, you should probably correct that first, because this article should just give a brief one-sentence summary of that article - it's more important that that article be right. Finally, it makes no sense to take about the "analysis phase" of an agile project which doesn't have phases.-- greenrd ( talk) 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As the book AntiPatterns is already mentioned in the lead paragraph, the hatnote constitutes overlinking and possibly legitimate article content that does not belong in a hatnote. Is any of this a valid reason to remove the hatnote? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 03:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Recommend adding this, as it's a well known anti-pattern on javascript. ref: http://callbackhell.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.33.111 ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The Builder pattern is cited as being a software design solution to the "telescoping constructor anti-pattern that occurs when the increase of object constructor parameter combination leads to an exponential list of constructors." Also discussed here. SteveChervitzTrutane ( talk) 05:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems like Rube Goldberg machine could qualify as an anti-pattern, with the antidote being Occam's razor. This anti-pattern could be applicable to either organizational or engineering realms. SteveChervitzTrutane ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The article starts out by defining "anti-pattern" in a meaningful way. It's a common solution to a problem, where the solution is worse than the problem. Multiple other sites give similar definitions.
But then it lists a ton of things that don't remotely meet this definition.
I could go on, but I really don't feel like it. 69.28.44.248 ( talk) 00:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The recent deletion of ALL of the examples of anti-pattern by /info/en/?search=User:Drmies seems to be counter-productive to the overall goals of Wikipedia. P.S. Here is a scholarly law journal reference for armed self defense: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc It is one of very many, even if you disagree with the facts they document. I was going to add the reference, but you deleted the entire section of examples before I could. P.P.S. If armed self-defense is a bad thing, then Ukraine should not hand out machine guns to civilians and instead simply surrender to Russia and turn over the country to Putin. I'm sure you will delete this entire comment, since you disagree with it.
P.P.P.S. If you disagree with my edit, then please delete it, but not the entire section. Also it's not ok for you to cancel/disappear my edits simply because they disagree with your personal political views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.S. Gutenberg ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Ineffablebookkeeper did a pretty good job explaining some of the problems here; I'll just say that your edit, and the complaint here, makes me think I dropped into a Facebook thread. Drmies ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)While often well-intentioned, by definition gun control affects only the law-abiding, reducing their self-defense rights against crime, while criminals ignore it and continue to abuse guns to harm their victims. Gun control is not crime control and may have the unintended consequence of increasing crime since it makes law-abiding victims defenseless against crime. In contrast, armed self-defense by the law-abiding has repeatedly been proven to be the safest and most effective means of self-defense against crime, as measured in government-sponsored criminology research.
My first concern with this edit is that it was by somebody who was not invested in maintaining this article. There was already an agreement in place amongst its typical curators that nothing is added to the list unless it warrants its own separate page on Wikipedia. This ensured that at a minimum, every item in the list had atleast some review, at some point, from an encyclopedic standard. A more appropriate action would have been to remove items from the list whose pages did not meet the citation standard (and probably delete - or atleast RFD those).
Secondly, I take some exception to saying that lists inside of encyclopedias are trash cans. Perhaps in some very specific scenarios, this is true. However any quick glance through any reputable encyclopedia will reveal that there are valid and consistent use of lists where neccesary and in obvious context. It had to be obvious from the traffic that this the go-to list of commonly referred to anti pattern examples on the internet.
That leads to another concern about the somewhat condescending link to the history now replacing what was previously a relatively well-curated page. No common user is going to going into the talk page or the history. If they are looking for examples, now they must (and WILL) look somewhere else.
On that point, I notice that the user who made this edit didn't bother go through and clean up any of the other 'trash can' lists that are on the non-English sites. Japanese, Polish, Spanish, German, French, etc... all have such lists. And many of those pages are in much worse shape than this page ever was, having red-links sprinkled throughout and no source references whatsoever.
I'm tempted to revert this edit on the basis that atleast I've been one of the active curators who has actively participated in the upkeep of this page. If someone can point me to a valid reference suggesting that lists are now somehow invalid in encyclopedic content (not Wikipedia, which clearly does not say such a thing: WP:SOURCELIST, but in general), I'll consider holding off. At a minimum, such a massive change should be discussed with those of us who taken the time over the years keep this article in decent shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 ( talk • contribs)
The huge list of original research you are curating is not in the best interest of the project; we are not a webhost for lists of examples. What happens on other wikis is not our concern. That long list had only a few sources, and many of them were simply not acceptable--this is a website whose authority is unproven, this is even less authoritative and seems like a hobbyist's site, this might be something but it begs the question of what this list is, and this is just a blog. There are two more citations, to books--but one of those, for the Peter principle, is clearly not a secondary source. So, no, "lists" aren't inherently anti-encyclopedic, but this list of examples is of no encyclopedic value, and is woefully undersourced--undercurated, one might say. If you want to improve the article, improve the article. One could start with that "Project management anti-patterns", which seems to elevate the status of one particular book to an unacceptable level.