Talk:JSP model 1 architecture

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Requested move 3 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model 1 → Java design model 1
Model 2 → Java design model 2

– Model 1 and Model 2 should be disambiguation pages. There are lots of other uses for "Model 1" (e.g. Smith & Wesson Model 1, Boeing Model 1, Breese-Dallas Model 1, and Austin Model 1) and "Model 2" (e.g. Smith & Wesson Model 2, Boeing Model 2, Federal Signal Model 2, etc.). The Java design models are definitely not the primary topic for "Model 1" or "Model 2". --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually called Jave design mode 1 because if not we would need to use something like Model 1 (application) of (web application).--67.68.208.170 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might not be, see Talk:Model_2#This_page_is_misleading. Not sure what it should be instead though. Maybe "Model 1 (software architectural pattern)"? Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rename to something. The current names are highly inappropriate as there are many models 1 and 2, many more popular and widely known than these. If nothing else, we can call them Model 1 (Java programming) and Model 2 (Java programming) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "JSP model 1 architecture" and "2" per this Oracle page. I know Wikipedia isn't hugely impressed by official names, but as far as I can divine from Google Search, they are actually in fairly widespread use and they are a good deal more descriptive than the current titles – if you are geeky enough to know what JSP means. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment - @67.68.208.170:, @Faceless Enemy:, @65.94.43.89:, @Favonian:, and others, we have a consensus to rename, but no consensus on new title at present. Is there any chance we can resolve the issue of what to move it to? "Java design model 1", "JSP model 1 architecture", "Model 1 (Java programming)", "Model 1 (software architectural pattern)" appear to be possible contenders. Which would you support, and which would you oppose? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I still think my own proposal should be preferred, if only in the name of precision. Java is a general purpose programming language, but the articles are specifically about Java web applications, so adding for instance a parenthetical "(Java programming)" is only marginally less bland than the present titles. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with Favonian's suggestions. I think my own should exist as redirects if we go in that direction -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that it should be relisted - I took a stab at the best name. Unfortunately I'm not a computer science expert. I've asked Wikiproject Computer Science for input. It may be best to be WP:BOLD and just move it to something "good enough" in the meantime, given the overwhelming consensus to move it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rename how on earth did these pages stay sitting at these titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Model 1 (design pattern) and Model 2 (design pattern), or Model 1 (software architecture) and Model 2 (software architecture), would be more appropriate (if these thing are actually commonly known as "model 1" and "model 2", I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of these terms.) According to Model 1 this terminology is very specific to Java Server Pages, so it may actually be more appropriate to merge these articles there (or perhaps to model-view-controller?) if these terms are not widely enough used to warrant their own articles. —Ruud 09:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we end up doing with these articles, I strongly support putting disambiguation pages at the current titles, even if we don't reach a consensus on where best to put these pages. —Ruud 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JSP model 1 architecture (and 2) per Favonian. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to something. Far, far too generic to be taken to refer to a specific thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving off of this highly ambiguous title. bd2412 T 19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving them to "JSP model 1 architecture" and "JSP model 2 architecture" for now. If someone else comes up with a more appropriate name later, then that's absolutely fine by me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.