Talk:Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams

Project Management Book
Well, it is not an advertisement. This is one of the most important project management books and is a best-seller. It was on the "Request" list, so I added it. What can I do to make you feel that this is not an advertisement? I don't even have the publisher or an Amazon link here.... --WiseWoman 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this isn't an advertisement. This is indeed an important book regarding project management. More coverage could go here about the messages of the book itself as they tie into specific methodologies (small 'm' or big 'M'). --JadonK 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spaghetti?
This, like about everything else in the book, is presented as a story, not so much as a technique or recommendation. I think this is a bit of a misportrayal of the book, which is not really written or structured as a how-to.

Other anecdotes in the book (such as The Black Team) would probably not be billed as implementable solutions, and they are presented the same way.

(I can imagine a massive niche market for bad consultation to do that sort of thing, though. Team Culinary Consultants, Inc.! Create new synergies in your company with a single night of our revolutionary new team-building techniques! :) Quamaretto 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN
The ISBN was missing, so I added it. My ISBN might be for the 2nd edition. --JadonK 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion leading to page move
The major problem with this entry is it is about "peopleware," a widely used term and concept in software/computers, but mentions only this one, admittedly influential, book. The term is in the title of at least 4 books, including one by Peter Newman in 1976. (DeMarco's claim to inventing the term is incorrect.) The article needs to be rewritten to cover the concept and cite the book/books. I'll work on a draft.Stirrer (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also move this article to for example Peopleware (book) and write a new article here about the term and concept of "peopleware". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not consistent with other related Wikipedia entries to have a separate treatment for the book. For example, there is no separate entry for Yourdon's Structured Design as a book. The Wikipedia would become cluttered chaos if every book got it's own entry. I would say the article is about "peopleware" and references the DeMarco/Lister book as a source. I have the article nearly complete and will submit post haste. Stirrer (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this makes no sens to me. There are numerous articles about books in Wikipedia. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why this book and not others was my point. Yes, there are numerous articles about books in Wikipedia, but they fall into two categories: those of truly historic importance and those that are being promoted. I am just saying this book per se does not seem to warrant a separate article, particularly as it would be little more than a stub. Stirrer (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue about this. I only responded to your first remarks. It is unacceptable if you rewrite an article about a book, into an article about a concept. This is not the way we work in Wikipedia.
 * If you don't like this article, move it any way, and then propose to delete it. Then I will respond.
 * -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Marcel is right, and I like his solution (moving this article to Peopleware (book), making this entry about the Peopleware concept). The book "Peopleware" has been so influential that last year there was a retrospective panel in the premier international conference on software engineering. It is widely known in the field. And a similarly relevant book, The_Mythical_Man-Month, has its own entry. That warrants an article for this book, in my opinion. However, it is also true that the current article is almost a stub, and needs to be developed as well. JorgeAranda (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have included my rewrite. Please consider it. I think it balances the two interests of the book and the term. I double-checked all the referencces. If the section on the book seems enough for a separate article, please do move it, but it seems to me to be too little. Stirrer (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have undone your rewrite. I don't even have to read it. When I say something is unacceptable, I mean it. Just move the article and copy your text back here. I can do it in a second or three, but then it is no longer clear, who wrote what. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. This is just a matter of the right Wikipedia procedure. You simply followed the wrong Wikipedia procedure. If you don't trust me, ask any administrator, or add a message to any noticeboard for help.


 * I did not see your post about the "right" Wikipedia procedure until after I had made my edit. I still think the combined article is clearer and sufficient, but you seem to be more or less "in charge" here as well as the arbiter of what is "unacceptable" Wikipedian procedure. I am just an editor and tech writer trying to contribute. You are the one who wants 2 articles. Aside from what is "acceptable," it would have been the courteous and scholarly thing to do to read the revision, maybe even let it stand long enough for others to read and react. I would have thought that it would be in the spirit if not the letter of the Wikipedia to give the revision, undertaken sincerely as an improvement, a chance. I still maintain that one actual article is better than two stubs. You, of course, can move whatever you want and I have no intention of starting an editing battle. Stirrer (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I am very positive towards your intention of creating a general article about peopleware. And you convinced me there are more then enough possibilities... but I also like the book article as it is. It is simply in Wikipedia we try to avoid creating article with multiple uses. Off cause I read some of your change. I read the first line, and noticed the standard line for a book was removed.


 * There was an other editors here that also advised you to follow the move procedure. I am also just trying to help here. Now I can move the article for you if you want, but it is really no big deal. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have moved this article as you proposed and recreated the Peopleware with your text. I hope this satisfies you!?