Talk:Spring Roo

Reliable Sources
83.134.86.245 asserts, "the only source in the list that might be considered a reliable source is infoq". 124.168.183.42 considers InfoQ, SD Times, InfoWorld, Sun Microsystems, DZone etc are credible, reliable sources, being major IT industry publications and/or vendors.

As stated in the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". Java software development topics are primarily the subject of blog entries and conference presentations given the rapidly changing nature of the topic. This is especially for new technologies like Spring Roo (which is under a year old). Comparison with alternate Java technology articles on Wikipedia like Google Web Toolkit, JBoss application server, Spring Framework and Grails (Framework) show they each have well under 10 references, many of which are simply to the project material or blogs. Even Java (software platform) itself contains only 25 references and these are mostly Sun material and blogs or email archives by Sun employees like Jonathan Schwartz. There are 21 external references in the Roo article and therefore far more references than most Java articles on Wikipedia (and including more established external references to authoritative sources such as contained in paragraph one of this section).

If the "reliable sources" template is indeed correctly applied to the Roo article, it is appropriate the template also be applied to the vast majority of other Java (and software development more generally) articles on Wikipedia.

It is also noted that the authors of most references in the article (as more fully detailed in the "Talk:Spring_Roo" section below) are published authors or accepted authorities on Java-related topics. Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy self-published sources online and paper, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Given the authors of the references are in almost all cases published authors or established authorities, it is difficult to assert their publications of their views on Spring Roo and/or their conference presentations do not constitute reliable sources - especially within the general context of Java articles on Wikipedia.

On 27 February 2010, 124.168.183.42 invited 83.134.86.245 to add new references or remove the references considered unreliable as necessary so that 83.134.86.245 considers it acceptable to remove the "reliable sources" template. There has been no response as of 6 March 2010. On 27 February 2010, 124.168.183.42 stated the intention to seek a third opinion if the template was not removed or the article amended, and as such a third opinion is sought as of 6 March 2010. 124.168.183.42 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To 83.134.86.245: As suggested by the third opinion above, are you in agreement that WP:IAR should apply? If I don't hear back from you within a week I will take it that we can remove both templates. Otherwise it would be appreciated if you would please comment. 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)~

Template has been removed consistent with the paragraph above. Please discuss here before adding it back onto the page. As per the above detail, there are considerable reliable sources in this article and in any event WP:IAR is a reasonable policy for this article.203.206.229.65 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute: Self Published
83.134.86.245 asserts, "the author list in the references section reads like a who's who of springsource employees". In constructive response to this feedback, 124.168.183.42 edited the article on 27 February 2010 to explicitly identify the four references associated with SpringSource employees. This edit included not only their association but also their role at SpringSource (which in turn correctly clarifies their authoritativeness in terms of commenting on the article subject, such as being a lead or engineer on Roo or one of the Roo-related projects at SpringSource etc). Including these four SpringSource employee references therefore meets the Wikipedia requirements of Verifiability, as the references are compliant with the five requirements expressed in that section:


 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It was also noted on 27 February 2010 there are numerous references authored by individuals who are not associated in any way with SpringSource. These include as of 6 March 2010:


 * Paul Krill (editor at InfoWorld - profile)
 * Alex Handy (senior editor at SD Times - profile)
 * Srini Penchikala (published on InfoQ, conference presenter at NFJS - profile)
 * Mitchell Pronschinske (staff writer at DZone - profile)
 * James Sugrue (published on DZone, editor at JavaLobby and EclipseZone - profile)
 * Ken Rimple (established authority in the Java field via for example hosting the Chariot Tech Cast series)
 * Massimiliano Dessì (established authority in the Java field via for example leadership of Spring Italian JUG and conference presentations at JAX Italia - profile)
 * Jeff Potts (published author of book, "Alfresco Developer Guide", Packt Publishing, which is authoritative in context of Pott's Roo comments on the Alfresco Surf integration)
 * Dhruba Bandopadhyay (Sun certified Java programmer, regular Java blogger at Lab49)

On 27 February 2010, 124.168.183.42 invited 83.134.86.245 to add new references or remove the references considered self-published as necessary so that 83.134.86.245 considers it acceptable to remove the "self published" template. There has been no response as of 6 March 2010. On 27 February 2010, 124.168.183.42 stated the intention to seek a third opinion if the template was not removed or the article amended, and as such a third opinion is sought as of 6 March 2010. 124.168.183.42 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To 83.134.86.245: As suggested by the third opinion above, are you in agreement that WP:IAR should apply? If I don't hear back from you within a week I will take it that we can remove both templates. Otherwise it would be appreciated if you would please comment. 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)~

Template has been removed consistent with the paragraph above. Please discuss here before adding it back onto the page. As per the above detail, there are considerable external sources in this article and in any event WP:IAR is a reasonable policy for this article.203.206.229.65 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To 124.168.183.42
Don't remove the templates without discussion. 81.11.214.44 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To 81.11.214.44
Sorry I didn't see this talk page until after I removed the tags. In any event there are 21 references cited to reputable external technology magazines, conferences and user group presentations. What exactly is your concern? Is there are a particular reference bothering you? Do you feel there's something in the article that is unbalanced? If so please be specific so that someone can try to make the article better. I did a general edit yesterday and improved external citations in the article, but to make it better (and worthy of you not thinking it should have those tags) requires specific info from you on what is actually wrong. So far you've just added tags and not improved the article itself or identified what is actually wrong with the article. Please assist by making the article better rather than just adding tags without detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.183.42 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding reliables sources, the only source in the list that might be considered a reliable source is infoq. All the other references point to springsource, various blogs and various slide decks, oh and dzone. Hence, the template is appropriate. After the various non-reliable sources have been removed I can think of a few other templates to throw in, but that's for later.


 * Regarding self-published sources, this one is obvious. The author list in the references section reads like a who's who of springsource employees.


 * The only template I'm willing to throw in is so there you go. 83.134.86.245 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Marketspeak?
"Spring Roo differentiates from other convention-over-configuration rapid application development tools in the following major ways: Java platform productivity: Roo provides a productivity solution for Java developers."

This reads like a press release. If we're just going to copy from their webpage, why does it need an encyclopedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Enumeration of attempts to differentiate from other technologies is of useful encyclopedic value and consistent with similar enumerations on comparable Wikipedia pages such as Java (programming_language). The differentiation discussion on the Roo page also provides links to Wikipedia articles treating the differentiation topics in more depth, offering readers easier exploration of the topics via Wikipedia (a benefit not available if the article was not hosted on Wikipedia). It might be useful to provide a controversy section if there is disagreement about such claims, or edit them if the tone could benefit from adjustment. 124.168.183.42 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be more useful, still, if the opening paragraphs actually described what Roo is and does rather than spew mere soundbites. I ended up after reading the article still not knowing just what Roo is. mikro2nd (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://java.dzone.com/articles/spring-roo-answer-real-rapid
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist
 * http://java.dzone.com/news/spring-roo-10-rad-tool-java
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist
 * http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23roo
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)