This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Possibly this link makes sense on the more general Design pattern (Computer Science) page, but I'm not sure it belongs here. Any opinions about my possibly removing it from here? Harborsparrow 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Be bold! Babomb 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What IS this "gang of four" -thing anyway? Sounds kinda stupid to me... like they had written this wikipedia article --sigs
small note: i clicked on the gang of four wikilink and reached another gang of four (political meaning), i changed it to point to gang of four (software), and then i saw it redirects me to here (design patterns). i don't know what is the convention on this case, but i guess that the old state (linking to a diffrent gang of four) is not a good idea, and redirecting to the same page is also not a good idea (it's correct, but it looks bad). so mean while i'm turning the link down.
Hmm. It somehow was relinked to the political group again, possibly by accident. I've removed the link again as the disambiguated page redirects here. 69.3.185.246 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ekta: The contents are really good, I found more valid contents here than any of the design sites I know of. Congratulations to the publisher of this information and keep it up!!
Iceman: I believe the "Gang of Four" term is a reference to the "Gang of Three". This was a term given to 3 prominent leaders in the Chinese Communist government.
anon: I'm removing the link, again it's referring to the Chinese politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 ( talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the link Design Patterns CD: Elements of Re-usable Object-Oriented Software The entire book online, updated by the authors for CD. with apologies to the anon. user who deleted it. If they have published the book online, it is not illegal to link to it; it would only be illegal to duplicate the material itself (which we have not). Harborsparrow 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.50 ( talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I came upon quite useful links: http://geekswithblogs.net/bjones/archive/2005/05/01/38837.aspx and http://mahemoff.com/paper/software/learningGoFPatterns/ . I think they should be added there. NOTE: former links to later. 84.16.123.194 ( talk) 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this one from the John Vlissides C2 article? Jon ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You need a citation to note that the authors are referred to as the Gang of Four? Really? What a waste of a {{cn}}. -- 72.222.129.211 ( talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Design Patterns/ Design Patterns (book) so that the former (full article) would be renamed as the latter (redirect). This was the consensus as per Talk:Design_Patterns#Move and Talk:Design_Patterns#Consider_Renaming_Article. User:Cybercobra reverted, on the basis that "discussions stale/ancient". I disagree that such decisions need be recent to be valid. Although the decision is old there was not a single objection. Please elaborate on contention. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 06:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't appear to include any criticisms of the book or the approach to design patterns. I've only ever heard reference to the book in contexts where the speakers lambast followers and readers who indiscriminately champion and adhere to the patterns, with specific disdain heaped upon the book having introduced a significant amount of jargon. A few ex-Netscape folks, for example, don't seem to think very highly of the book (or perhaps just its detrimental effects on software engineering in the 1990s). -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia the place for detailed book summaries? Personally, I think it's great. I love this amount of detail and information. But I'm curious, does Wikipedia have a policy about this? Should it go on Wiki Summaries? Please know that I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I plan (or even want to) make changes to the article. -- Foofy ( talk) 01:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added an external link to GoF Design Patterns Open Online Learning (w3sdesign.com). Do you agree? Serv49 ( talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
"The Gang of Four" - I haven't seen any information about how these guys got this name, but I believe it's an allusion to the Greek "Gang of Three"; Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, being concerned with logic also. There doesn't seem to be a wikipedia article about the Gang of Three but it would be good to create one and then mention this allusion!
http://wiki.c2.com/?GangOfFour the above link has the history you asked for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.26.227 ( talk) 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
the usefull resource for this book is a CD version - maybe this should also be put somewhere on this page?
Gamma, Erich, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides (1997). Design Patterns CD. ISBN 0201634988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stic~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus regarding this move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Design Patterns →
Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software – Seems to conflict with the article
Design pattern (for the concept of a design pattern).
Nerd1a4i (
talk) 22:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. --
Dane
talk 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone has slapped a non-notable label on this article. In my opinion, it meets at least three of the five notability criteria (1, 3, 4), even withouth taking into account the special provisions in WP:TEXTBOOKS. Therefore, I fail to understand why has that label been put here, but I don't want to remove it without discussion.-- Gorpik ( talk) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, A couple of thoughts on this entry: 1)shouldn't, perhaps, the 'Design Patterns' page be about the concept of design patterns, with a reference to the Gang of Four book of the same title as one of the primary works on the subject? There is much more to say about design patterns than appears in the GOF book, and there are other books on the subject. 2)Does listing a books table of contents count as plagerism?
So, who's going to do it? RodrigoBelo 23:16 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
Thomas Foxcroft ( talk) 06:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I also agree. Here are the guidelines. As stated by Article titles, "If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move," and as stated by Moving a page, one reason for moving a page is because "It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic, or it exists at a disambiguated name but should not because it is the primary topic." A standard way to disambiguate is stated by Naming conventions for books, where it says in subtopic "Standard disambiguation," the title can be suffixed with "(book)."
Furthermore, when an article's title is changed, its database entry is altered but not actually moved. For this reason, a title change is sometimes called a rename, although move remains the most common term.
I will take the initiative to move the page and add the suffix to disambiguate the title for this article.
Thomas Foxcroft ( talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC) An attempt was made, but the page could not be moved (renamed).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Possibly this link makes sense on the more general Design pattern (Computer Science) page, but I'm not sure it belongs here. Any opinions about my possibly removing it from here? Harborsparrow 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Be bold! Babomb 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What IS this "gang of four" -thing anyway? Sounds kinda stupid to me... like they had written this wikipedia article --sigs
small note: i clicked on the gang of four wikilink and reached another gang of four (political meaning), i changed it to point to gang of four (software), and then i saw it redirects me to here (design patterns). i don't know what is the convention on this case, but i guess that the old state (linking to a diffrent gang of four) is not a good idea, and redirecting to the same page is also not a good idea (it's correct, but it looks bad). so mean while i'm turning the link down.
Hmm. It somehow was relinked to the political group again, possibly by accident. I've removed the link again as the disambiguated page redirects here. 69.3.185.246 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ekta: The contents are really good, I found more valid contents here than any of the design sites I know of. Congratulations to the publisher of this information and keep it up!!
Iceman: I believe the "Gang of Four" term is a reference to the "Gang of Three". This was a term given to 3 prominent leaders in the Chinese Communist government.
anon: I'm removing the link, again it's referring to the Chinese politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 ( talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the link Design Patterns CD: Elements of Re-usable Object-Oriented Software The entire book online, updated by the authors for CD. with apologies to the anon. user who deleted it. If they have published the book online, it is not illegal to link to it; it would only be illegal to duplicate the material itself (which we have not). Harborsparrow 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.50 ( talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I came upon quite useful links: http://geekswithblogs.net/bjones/archive/2005/05/01/38837.aspx and http://mahemoff.com/paper/software/learningGoFPatterns/ . I think they should be added there. NOTE: former links to later. 84.16.123.194 ( talk) 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this one from the John Vlissides C2 article? Jon ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You need a citation to note that the authors are referred to as the Gang of Four? Really? What a waste of a {{cn}}. -- 72.222.129.211 ( talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I tagged Design Patterns/ Design Patterns (book) so that the former (full article) would be renamed as the latter (redirect). This was the consensus as per Talk:Design_Patterns#Move and Talk:Design_Patterns#Consider_Renaming_Article. User:Cybercobra reverted, on the basis that "discussions stale/ancient". I disagree that such decisions need be recent to be valid. Although the decision is old there was not a single objection. Please elaborate on contention. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 06:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't appear to include any criticisms of the book or the approach to design patterns. I've only ever heard reference to the book in contexts where the speakers lambast followers and readers who indiscriminately champion and adhere to the patterns, with specific disdain heaped upon the book having introduced a significant amount of jargon. A few ex-Netscape folks, for example, don't seem to think very highly of the book (or perhaps just its detrimental effects on software engineering in the 1990s). -- C. A. Russell ( talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia the place for detailed book summaries? Personally, I think it's great. I love this amount of detail and information. But I'm curious, does Wikipedia have a policy about this? Should it go on Wiki Summaries? Please know that I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I plan (or even want to) make changes to the article. -- Foofy ( talk) 01:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added an external link to GoF Design Patterns Open Online Learning (w3sdesign.com). Do you agree? Serv49 ( talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
"The Gang of Four" - I haven't seen any information about how these guys got this name, but I believe it's an allusion to the Greek "Gang of Three"; Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, being concerned with logic also. There doesn't seem to be a wikipedia article about the Gang of Three but it would be good to create one and then mention this allusion!
http://wiki.c2.com/?GangOfFour the above link has the history you asked for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.26.227 ( talk) 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
the usefull resource for this book is a CD version - maybe this should also be put somewhere on this page?
Gamma, Erich, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides (1997). Design Patterns CD. ISBN 0201634988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stic~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus regarding this move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Design Patterns →
Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software – Seems to conflict with the article
Design pattern (for the concept of a design pattern).
Nerd1a4i (
talk) 22:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. --
Dane
talk 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone has slapped a non-notable label on this article. In my opinion, it meets at least three of the five notability criteria (1, 3, 4), even withouth taking into account the special provisions in WP:TEXTBOOKS. Therefore, I fail to understand why has that label been put here, but I don't want to remove it without discussion.-- Gorpik ( talk) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, A couple of thoughts on this entry: 1)shouldn't, perhaps, the 'Design Patterns' page be about the concept of design patterns, with a reference to the Gang of Four book of the same title as one of the primary works on the subject? There is much more to say about design patterns than appears in the GOF book, and there are other books on the subject. 2)Does listing a books table of contents count as plagerism?
So, who's going to do it? RodrigoBelo 23:16 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
Thomas Foxcroft ( talk) 06:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I also agree. Here are the guidelines. As stated by Article titles, "If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move," and as stated by Moving a page, one reason for moving a page is because "It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic, or it exists at a disambiguated name but should not because it is the primary topic." A standard way to disambiguate is stated by Naming conventions for books, where it says in subtopic "Standard disambiguation," the title can be suffixed with "(book)."
Furthermore, when an article's title is changed, its database entry is altered but not actually moved. For this reason, a title change is sometimes called a rename, although move remains the most common term.
I will take the initiative to move the page and add the suffix to disambiguate the title for this article.
Thomas Foxcroft ( talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC) An attempt was made, but the page could not be moved (renamed).