Talk:Greenfield project

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Telecommunications

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed Merger

I oppose the proposed merger. "Greenfield project" and "greenfield land" are two fairly distinct concepts, and seem to deserve their own entry. It may be possible to combine them as instances of the concept "greenfield", but that seens a little to general to me. -- kaosfere 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not MergeAS noted before these terms pertain to different domains though the semantic origin of the terminology may be the same. However, we would probably like to see some more elaboration on "greenfield projects". The idea of a greenfield project is not unique to the software engineering domain. Here in India, it is often applied to domains that range from telecom to infrastructure. 202.144.24.225 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Yusof Ahmad New Delhi India[reply]

Do Not Merge"Greenfield project" uses the word "greenfield" in the same sense as "greenfield land", but one is land (specific) and other project (non-specific). Thus they are not the same thing. One could not refer to a "greenfield software land". David - UK.

Do Not Merge I came across the word "greenfield" in the description of a project, so it was very helpful that the disambiguation pointed to an entry specific to projects. If it is later decided that the entries be merged (doubtful, since no one has voiced an opinion in favor of that option) then at least the disambiguation page for greenfield should have two separate entries, one for projects and the other for land, which may refer to sections of the merged document.—GraemeMcRae^talk 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge I do not think these two articles should be merged, rather there should be a disambiguation page for software greenfields and actual land usage greenfield sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Do Not Merge I support the previous editors including Greame. WP:Not#Paper there is plenty of scope for Greenfield project, Greenfield land, or even Greenfield (software project), Greenfield (infrastructure project) if this current article grows enough to warrant that. Ga rr ie 04:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the sections to put this more in line with convention for merge/move/delete debates. Ga rr ie 04:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the history accurate?

The page supposes this development line: (1) programmers use an analogy with realworld architecture/engineering (some projects start on 'greenfield') to describe their new/fromscratch projects. Later, (2) realworld architects and engineers start applying a phrase, 'greenfield project', invented by the programmers in an analogy to the physical domain, which the programmers thought of first. Is this supported by any documents? Or should it be rewritten not to imply this dependence of the engineers on the programmers for (relatively straightforward, one might think) terms in their domain?--69.230.186.108 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]