Talk:Distributed Common Ground System

Merge?
Suggest that the article using an acronym DCGS-A be merged with this one. I know that one only talks about the Army's version, but it seems a unified article on all the forces variants would be a good start, and the various ones could then be spun back off when they are independently notable enough to withstand a notability challenge. Also calling it a "weapons system" is misleading. As far as I can tell, digging through all the acronyms and buzzwords, it is computer software. Just perhaps as expensive (and could argue as useful?) as traditional "weapons systems", but not a missile or a gun. Now I suppose if one of those computers running the software falls on you, it might hurt, but we should try to be honest and say what it really is. W Nowicki (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, W Nowicki. Your idea of a unified article that can be spun-off as need be sound like a good one... assuming that DCGS-A is just the army's name for the joint project or that it's just one aspect of a larger DCGS project, whichever the case may be. On quick glance at things and trusting your view that they are basically the same, I support a merge. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply start by merging the whole "DCGS-A" article into "Distributed Common Ground System" as a sub-heading. The material can be massaged from there. I am somewhat suspicious of this edit that added quite a bit to the article. It seems intended to portray the system in a better light than was first reported and is from an editor with edits to no other articles. I think it's reasonable to worry about a conflict of interest there or a non-neutral purpose. I will ask the editor. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) ✅


 * This is hilarious. You're "somewhat suspicious?"  Yeah, me too.  You decided to take a factually incorrect, poorly written hit-piece and turn it into a Wikipedia article.  Why?  Why create an entry you know nothing about in a field you don't understand -- and then defend your stance like you have personal stake in it?  You are shilling for Palantir.  When someone who clearly knows some background about the subject corrects your numerous inaccuracies (copied directly from the marketing piece that "inspired" you to write this article), you are concerned it's biased.  Garbage like this is why Wikipedia isn't seen as trustworthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.246.111 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

DDF issues
The last portion of the article says "A portion of the software, a distributed data framework for the DCGS integration backbone (DIB) version 4, was submitted to an open-source software repository of the Codice Foundation on github.[22][23] The framework was new for DIB version 4, replacing an Ozone Widget Framework.[24] It was written in the Java programming language.[25]" The distributed data framework isn't "a", that is "the" Distributed Data Framework (a technology) so should be capitalized and can have the acronym DDF. Additionaly is doesn't replace the Ozone Widget Framework, it replaces a legacy portal WITH the Ozone Widget Framework. Please see http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a556470.pdf on page 3 bullet #5 which reads. "Replaces the legacy DIB portal with an Ozone Widget Framework (OWF) interface to leverage on-going community investment in widget development." 128.237.28.16 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)