Talk:Django (web framework)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Django (web framework). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ruby on Rails mention

"In many ways Django is Pythons answer to Ruby on rails." Actually, it was developed independently and concurrently. Ruby on Rails --as the proper capitalization is-- was released/open-sourced earlier. --81.240.93.46 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It says so in the same meaning, but I agree, it gives a false impression of it comming as an response if you skim it. In case someone want to fix it here's some synonyms fo equivalent that may help: alike, analogous, commensurate, comparable, corresponding, counterpart, equal, level, like, match, peer, same, similar. I planned to use it but didn't come up with any good wording, mybe someone else can. :) 217.145.28.242 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Holovaty

The page Adrian Holovaty redirects to Django web framework but this page doesn't mention him. Should it say who created the framework somewhere? Adrian and someone else, I think. Francis Irving 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the redirect is correct; he's fairly well known for his work on interactions of technology and journalism, so a case could be made that he should have an article to himself. As for mentioning him, Simon, Jacob or any of the other developers, I'd say it's best to take cues from other software articles on who to mention and how. I'll bow out of that, though, because I probably have a conflict of interest there. Ubernostrum 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki link

User:Chealer, could you explain your rationale for repeatedly removing the link to the Django wiki, please? Ubernostrum 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't see the point of directly linking. More links don't necessarily make the article better.--Chealer 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More links doesn't necessarily mean a better article, but linking to the official wiki for a piece of software does, I think, improve the article about that software.

This is excessive generalization. It depends at least on the wiki's content and on the other external links.

A number of other articles in the web frameworks category do the same, linking to wikis, forums or other public discussion areas. I'm going to add the link back in. Ubernostrum 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed again.--Chealer 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the link, and have re-added it, because the main wiki page provides quick access to a wide variety of supplemental user-contributed information on Django; thus I feel it's a worthwhile link which contributes something to this article.

At first glance, the link to the wiki doesn't add anything since the other link links to a page which already links to the wiki. However, on closer inspection, if your point is that the "Code" label for the link from Django's site is incomplete, then it's probably OK to restore the link.--Chealer 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The main Django site does link to the wiki, yes, but I'm concerned with providing quick access to useful information, rather than making people hunt for it. Ubernostrum 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For much the same reason, I feel that similar links to wikis, forums and other discussion sites on articles about other pieces of software often contribute usefully to those articles. Can you provide a specific rationale for why you feel that this specific link does not contribute to this specific article? If not I will add it once again and respectfully ask that you leave the matter alone, as the constant reverting is not a productive use of Wikipedia or of anyone's time. Ubernostrum 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TurboGears link removed

I've removed the link which was added to TurboGears; users in search of other frameworks can find a comprehensive list via the "Web application frameworks" category which is already linked here. Ubernostrum 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just yanked links again; the "web frameworks" category is already a far more comprehensive list, and adding links to specific frameworks is just redundant; if you disagree, let's talk about it here. I've also argued for the same on the talk page for TurboGears. Ubernostrum 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. removal of TurboGears/RoR links (August) - I thought it was an omission on the Django page compared to the TG/RoR pages, hence my addition. I didn't realise there was a 'web frameworks' category - it is indeed a more comprehensive list. Given that Django/TG/RoR are often referred to together in on-line debates, I'd have thought some cross-linking would be sensible, but I'm a stranger here so I'll leave this alone. IanOzsvald

"Like Ruby on Rails, another popular open-source framework, Django was used in production for some time before being publicly released;" I don't like the way the opening sentance here links to Ruby on Rails an arguably competitor product. It sort of seems advertising and moving away from the actual topic. Just my opinion 86.128.147.122 (aCiD2, but I'm not logged in, sorry)

Ubernostrum: The fact that such a category exists does not justify removal of "see also" links which belong to that category. I would argue that TurboGears and Ruby on Rails are significantly more relevant than any other frameworks from the category, and thus do qualify for listing explicitly under the "see also" section. -- intgr 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wary. The problem with this sort of thing is that it quickly gets out of hand -- someone comes along, sees that the "see also" sections of these articles don't mention their favorite app framework, and they add it. Repeat ad nauseam, and soon every article duplicates the entire category listing. And weeding out "more relevant" and "less relevant" is largely subjective (is web.py "more relevant" than some other frameworks? Knowing the history behind it, I'd say so. What about CakePHP? What about Code Igniter? What about Camping? Catalyst? Gantry? Etc.) and so will be impossible to do correctly, which means that the only even-handed treatment is to keep every link or remove every link. Personally, I come down for the latter, since the category is already available with the full listing. Ubernostrum 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Has it ever gotten out of hand? I haven't seen that happen on other articles. -- intgr 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm apparently in the minority on thinking that the links are redundant with the category, let's just let it be and see what happens. Ubernostrum 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Database systems

Isn't oracle and ado_mssql supported officially? When I look into SVN I see that ado_mssql is there and the oracle-code from the oracle-boulder-sprint was merged recently. This question also concerns the german article. --217.225.199.248 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much bowed out of editing this article -- now that I'm the release manager for Django, I don't particularly want to provoke the wrath of the Wiki by editing with a perceived conflict of interest. If you think something's missing, it's a Wiki: edit it ;) Ubernostrum 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

External links removed by Betacommand

I personally have no opinion on whether the Google Groups links should be listed here, but Betacommand's removal cites only policies which state that such links should not be used as sources for an article, not policies which state that such links are inappropriate as external links. Additionally, he/she/it appears to have been ordered by admins to cease removing such links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Emergency:_Betacommand_deletion_at_bot_speeds_-_please_review_impending_block

If someone wants to have a discussion about whether those links belong here or not (as explained above, I no longer feel comfortable doing serious edits to this article), go for it; just list the rationale here for whatever's decided :) Ubernostrum

Betacommand was making automated and unreviewed edits at a prohibited rate, and was thus violating the WP:BOT policy. His edits are not approved for now. For details, see WP:ANI#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. -- intgr 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you already pointed that out. Ignore my message. :) -- intgr 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Djangologo.gif

Image:Djangologo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

MS SQL

I just removed it from the list of supported databases since support was dropped here(http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/7364), if someone wants to add it back in since it is still in .96 feel free to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.176.194 (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed

As a rule I don't edit the content of this article (due to a conflict of interest on my part), but I've added the "citation needed" markup to a few recently-added bits which are in need of sources. Could some kindly person dig up some sources and add them (see WP:RS and WP:CRIT for relevant policy details)? Ubernostrum (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

the django book?

doesn't the django book (http://www.djangobook.com)) deserve some mentioning? Lunarmys 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. {{sofixit}} :) -- intgr 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the django book can probably be removed now, since its really out of date. Blazeix (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's being rewritten for Django 1.0, and four chapters are online so far. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Framework links (again)

Was there ever a real consensus on having every Python framework's article link to every other? Or just trusting that having proper categorization would do the trick? I ask because I notice that the list of "see also" links is starting to grow again... Ubernostrum (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper categorization works. In lieu of that, its not uncommon so long as there are only a few. You could additionally create an article called 'List of python frameworks' and simply link to that. Subsume aka Yeago (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why another list if we already have a category: Category:Python web application frameworks? -- intgr [talk] 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Or that.Yeago (talk)

Merge "Books" and "Bibliography" sections

As far as I can tell the "Books" and "Bibliography" sections have the same purpose and duplicate most of the content. They should be merged. Anyone willing to do the work? -- intgr [talk] 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MVC pattern

which loosely follows the model-view-controller design pattern

What does "loosely" mean in this context? Does it follow MVC or not?

--Florian Sening 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It does follow the MVC I believe, however Django calls it MTV(Model-Template-View). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.214.66 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that if you're familiar with MVC you'll recognize the architecture, though some things don't go by exactly the same names; the same separation of concerns -- data modelling, routing, database interaction and presentation -- are all kept in well-separated components just as in a stricter MVC design, but the naming is different. Django's templates, for example, embody the pure presentational logic which is called the "view" in strict MVC, and a Django "view" actually does most of the duties of a strict-MVC controller (database interaction and selecting a template to use for presentation). These differences arise because, historically speaking, Django is more concerned with ease of use and practicality than with design-pattern purity. Ubernostrum 01:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking django follows a Model View Presenter pattern. In this pattern the View handles most of the logic of the View and Control from the MVC pattern and provides a presentation layer, usually a template running on a templating engine. marr75 11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

running example

I like the example in SQLAlchemy, should we maybe construct the same here for Django? Brevity (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

List of apps built on Django

This article should not contain an arbitrary list of sites running Django, but rather a list of notable such sites, according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That means the sites should be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. (And it wouldn't hurt to have a reliable primary or secondary source which says the applications are based on Django.)

If a site does not meet WP:N it doesn't belong in this list. Item #4 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the policy which applies to this.

Only three apps in this list, Bucketlist, DjangoSites.org, and Universal Subtitles do not have articles in Wikipedia. Are these notable sites which have coverage in reliable, secondary sources? If so, please add references to that effect (and preferably a source that says the sites are based on Django).

While external links are not normally appropriate in the body of an article – see WP:ELPOINTS, the content guideline on external links – I can see keeping them temporarily until the articles are written, provided (1) the sites really do meet WP:N and (2) this article has references in place which substantiate the claim of notability. --Pnm (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Model-View-Control Paradigm in the Case of Django

I have built sites using Django and I am familiar with the model-view-control paradigm, and I agree that Django is an example of MVC, but the article describes it in a way that I feel is inaccurate. It says models.py is the model portion, views.py and the templates are the view portion, and the URL dispatcher is the control portion. I would argue that views.py contains aspects of both the view and the control pieces, and then other modules added by the developer would add more control pieces.155.212.194.163 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)