Talk:Programming domain

Delete?
Not sure if this is a technically correct term. I would vote for deletion. Phoe6 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just rename it, but keep this as a redirect. "list of application domains" perhaps. It could be extended into an article contrasting the issues in various domains of programming (languages used, etc) —Unsigned comment by user on February 5, 2017

Merge?
It has been suggested by user to merge this article with Domain (software engineering), and to merge Domain (software engineering) with this article. I have removed the merge tag from Domain (software engineering) because the dual requests are conflicting, "Domain" is the senior topic, and we don't want any resulting discussion to be split between two different pages. Put them all together here, if one must.

I spent some time updating both articles which should clarify what they are and show that the concepts are not identical. The senior concept is "Domain", and that is the concept that needs to be understood before one can understand "programming domain".

Although it would be natural to assume that the word "programming" is simply a redundant adjective in "programming domain" (since "domain" applies only to computer programming), it isn't as simple as that. "A programming domain" is a thing unto itself and the word "programming" is not simply an adjective; it forms a compound noun.

I would definitely argue against merging the two topics because one is not a subset of the other (as might be thought if you think of "programming" as the adjective, which it is not).

Normal Op (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * following up on your request at Bot requests/Archive 80. See this edit where removed
 * and compare with the template on this article
 * Given the misperception here that dual Merge templates are "conflicting", I intend to start implementing this by placing reciprocal templates only in cases where the direction is specified (i.e. either Merge to or Merge from so as to avoid the perception of edit-warring with the removal of a template such as seen here. In general, we should be encouraging editors to specify the direction, except in cases where they are truly ambivalent about what the title of the merged article should be, or unsure about which article is the "original" and which is the "fork". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the misperception here that dual Merge templates are "conflicting", I intend to start implementing this by placing reciprocal templates only in cases where the direction is specified (i.e. either Merge to or Merge from so as to avoid the perception of edit-warring with the removal of a template such as seen here. In general, we should be encouraging editors to specify the direction, except in cases where they are truly ambivalent about what the title of the merged article should be, or unsure about which article is the "original" and which is the "fork". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the dual merge requests that was objectionable, it was the dual places to discuss it. To contribute to your project, I would suggest that when you set up your template or bot (or whatever the mechanism is) for bi-directional notices that you make provision for a single discussion location. Normal Op (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The merge template documentation says: "By default, the Discuss link on the template links to the top of the destination page's talk page. To specify which section, or to name a different talk page entirely, use the discuss parameter" – but when the destination page isn't specified, it assumes that the page where the template is placed is the destination. Unfortunately users often place these templates without starting a discussion. If a discussion is started, I'd encourage that the discuss parameter be specified on both pages. I've restored the template on the other page, and added the discuss parameter to both. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're quite right that the unspecified merge direction, with a single template, is a common problem, and one harder to solve if the explicit discussion link hasn't been added. If someone misses the reciprocal template, then they'll probably also miss adding an explicit discussion link. Perhaps the following might work: if a single template is placed proposing a merge between A and B, the tag being placed on A only, then the merge template will have been directing discussion to Talk:A. Therefore, it would be reasonable to place the new template on B as a merge template with discuss set to Talk:A. Might that work? Klbrain (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That works. Thanks for correcting the oddity. If I encounter another similar dual-merge proposal in the future, I know what I can do to help point discussion to the same, single, conversation. Normal Op (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing merge proposal; uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)