Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Software and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:SOFTWAREWT:SOFTWARE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing This page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Open file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

MP4 file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

ISO base media file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Computer_program#Merge_with_Software. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is Jose. Could someone review this discussion about test tools in software testing workflows? The proposal has been pending input since June. Thank you! —Joses3es (talk) ~~~~~ Jose F. Amoros (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post LLM-generated comments (including edit requests) on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 15:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Adamson (software pioneer)#Requested move 8 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MPEG-1 Audio Layer II#Requested move 3 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to update the version at GNU Hurd but I've apparently done something wrong. Anyone able to help with this? ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edit and the corresponding discussion thread. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject editors,

I’m seeking broader input on a dispute regarding the inclusion of the LivinGrimoire software design pattern in the Software design pattern article.

LivinGrimoire is a documented, reusable solution to recurring architectural problems—namely spaghetti code, code debt, and modular logic packaging. It uses a consistent structure (`brain.addSkill(new Skill())`) and is implemented across 9 programming languages. The pattern is backed by 24 GitHub wiki pages detailing its architecture, APIs, and philosophy:

🔗 https://github.com/yotamarker/LivinGrimoire/wiki

Despite meeting the definition of a software design pattern, its inclusion has been blocked due to lack of academic citations. I’ve opened a detailed discussion on the article’s Talk page here: 🔗 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Software_design_pattern#LivinGrimoire_pattern:_justification_for_inclusion

This raises a broader question: should Wikipedia exclude empirically implemented patterns simply because journals haven’t acknowledged them—especially when those journals routinely ignore independent developers?

I welcome your thoughts on whether LivinGrimoire qualifies for inclusion under current guidelines.

Thanks in advance. Moti Barski (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your broader question, yes it can be valid to exclude. We prefer to wait for WP:SECONDARY coverage to emerge before including new information. Otherwise you're flirting with WP:OR. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]