Talk:Observability (software)

Requested move 9 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Software observability → Observability (software) – Disambiguation targets should use instead of prepending the subject area. Observability is rarely referred to in primary and secondary sources as "software observability" and more often is referred to just as "observability" or "x observability" where x is "systems", "data", etc. and thus using Software as the only x could be confusing for describing the application of the word "observability" to systems. Please be aware of my conflict of interest here, as I work at a vendor in the space. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rreagan007 not intending to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation, but can you point to multiple concrete examples of WP:RS referring to the subject as "software observability"? I did a search and such examples were few and far between. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Lightsoar (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am considering Observability (software engineering) as well as this proposal. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with nom current title is not NATURAL and parenthetic disambiguating is more appropriate. Also more concise “software” is preferable to “software engineering” as disambiguator. —В²C ☎ 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Three pillars"
Might want to note that the use of three pillars is disputed, because indeed as @Lightsoar noted in the edits with the addition of continuous profiling, that there are possible additions to the types of telemetry as the field evolves. Useful shorthand for log/trace/metric telemetry, but also evolving and probably shouldn't be enshrined as synonymous with o11y. Mind my conflict of interest, etc. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am fine with "archiving" the "three pillars" under a "History" section but "three pillars" (or five) is all over the place on the internet. Lightsoar (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's totally fair. Thanks for considering! Lizthegrey (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)