Jump to content

Talk:Software architect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

Completely rewrote the software architect article. Removed the stub indicator. normxxx 19:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (2006)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Merge Software architect + Systems architect
  • Support — This article appears to be an almost direct copy of the Systems architect article, with only minor changes. It seems more sensible to simply have a systems architect article that includes a section describing the differences between a systems architect and a software architect (which may only be in the name, in the case of systems that are basically just software). --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allan: The similarity is not accidental. It is a technique I developed in writing formal specifications— it forces the reader to concentrate on the real differences and not on any apparent differences due to different wording. English is tricky. Please see my comments on the SE talk page.
What I think is much more important is to see how we can meld the definition for Technical architecture and also Operational architecture— which seem to be architectural views being advanced by the Army, DoD in general, and SEI. I think those need to be better melded into our current Wiki set of definitions. In particular, as I read the literature, Technical architecture is not exclusively about software, so to that extent, the Wiki definition is wrong! ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normxxx: the problem is that without doing a diff of the two articles it is almost impossible to see the differences, and thus hard to focus on them. A surface reading of the two articles (Which is all many readers may do) makes the two seem identical. That is the reason that someone (and I should point out that someone wasn't me) has proposed to merge the articles. The alternative would be to rewrite this article to say something like "A software architect is a systems architect who specializes in developing software systems. The role of the software architect is in most respects the same as that of a systems architect. But there are some differences that result from the software architect's focus on software systems. These differences include...". The following references may help:
--Allan McInnes (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed ther merge tag, per the discussions at Talk:Systems architect. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • There is a difference between System Architects and Software Architects. You could take a look at the System Architecture and Software Architecture pages to find out. Basically, it boils down to responsibility. The Software Architect makes the decisions about the software, the system architect about those decisions that have a big impact both software and hardware. In the Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture there was a session about the duties of a software architect. This might be good scientific point for revising the current description.

Proposed new rewrite

[edit]

The article is too dry and coupled to a particular style of developing software. I propose removing all aspects that talk of document deliverables and specific workflows, and instead focus on the communication aspects, as well as attempting to define the core of the role (what does a software architect do for the business). 216.17.5.44 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Steve Campbell[reply]

Proposed new rewrite, reply

[edit]

Sounds OK. Some of the other articles (including those generated by me or had major input from me) have been vastly improved since I visited this site last. However, recognize what you are getting into. This is one of a large number of engineering and systems and software and hardware articles which all hang together: if you majorly modify one, then the rest should be changed. Also, while discussion of work products may be avoided, I doubt that discussion of work flow can be, since we still need to distinguish software architect from systems architect and hardware architect— not to mention such architects as building architects or naval architects.

Also, people generally want to know what it is exactly an architect does, and this is almost impossible to disentagle from workflow and/or work product.

I think something like Allan's suggestion above has merit; we can then concentrate on the systems architect article and note the difference in the other engineering achitect articles.

Normxxx 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the article. The new article takes the viewpoint that Software Architect is too general a term to define exactly. It tries to focus on generalized areas of input, rather than on specific outputs of the role. I have marked the article as a stub, because I believe what is there now is a good starting point.
Regarding types of architect, there seems to be very little agreement on what the specific terms mean. I have tried to provide good references where I could, but some of the work is original (for example, the table comparing types of architects).
Steve Campbell 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit

[edit]

Hello: I wonder if the author of the latest edit would be kind enough to comment on his or her reasons for undoing my re-writing? I do not believe I have made any material alterations to the article; I merely have been trying to improve the writing. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an accident, and took the liberty of reverting. That editor attempted to add an external link, and I think started from a previous version of the article (he's a new editor). If it's a good link go ahead and re-add it. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The application architect is almost always an active software developer?

[edit]

Yes citation is needed for such generalisation. In my experience it just differs from organisation to organisation. The organisation I currently work for the opposite is true. Application architects are almost always not active software developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hseldon1234 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) --Hseldon1234 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Enterprise_architect#Architect --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please moderate the description of an architect :)

[edit]

"Software architect is a computer programmer who makes high-level design choices and dictates technical standards, including software coding standards, tools, and platforms."

Gabriel K.:

First you don't dictate, you "strongly" suggest, otherwise you limit the innovation in your team. You need feedbacks and tips!

My description of a software architect correspond to what you have in a startup.

In my junior years, I was a dictator, but it doesn't work. Then I've learned the job.

- Visionary: You need to have a vision of the product. What you do now, and what you expect to do in the future. How can you reach this target. - Strong in IT: You need to be strong in development, strong in system infrastructure (what we call a DevOp). - Strong in process and coaching: Then your goal is to help your team to reach his goal. You need to understand how you can help you team to perform better (the description of a scrum master is quite good). You perhaps need to create new process, or remove some process! How can you help your team to perform better? Do things make sense? - Strong in Business: You need to understand and sell your architecture to your people, and to the CEO / management / sales. You need to understand what is the role of everyone and how the architecture help them to reach their goal.

An architect is a communicator in a team. You are part of the top management, but part of the "workers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.173 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty hopeless. I put a lil lipstick on the pig. Hope that helps :) 98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've started my draft of this article with the first 3 §§ redacted. Will have comments enabled there in a while. I don't generally contend content in public venues. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2019

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Software architect → Software designer – The word "Architect" should be only used for those who work with architecture (buildings). The title of Architect is protected by statute in the United Kingdom and should only be used by Architects registered in the UK with the Architects Registration Board (ARB). Also the term "Architect" is a protected title. Only a person licensed in New York can call himself/herself an architect and offer architectural services in New York. Kindly, note the this page has been using that term only because it is widely spread by people and companies and that does not make it the right term. Ahkin88 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support of the move"not to stop everyone using common English words" There are other common English words that can describe what this profession is doing in a much better way, thus should be called a Software Designer but not an architect; confusing people is not something Wikipedia wants to do. Calling someone an architect and opposing all kinds of sense and governmental laws [1] should be considered in such a matter. Shortly, you are misleading the public. Ahkin88 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's confusing or misleading anybody. If anyone wants to know what a software architect is, they can look it up on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). Your nomination implies your support of it, unless you say otherwise, so this is a duplicate !vote. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misleading and confusing the public. Referring to the reference provided above:
"Similarly, unlicensed persons might also be prohibited from using derivatives of the word "architect" or "architecture" in conjunction with unrestricted titles as this may be viewed as misleading to the public when it is implied that professional services are being offered, e.g., "architectural designer", "interior architecture", etc. The restriction does not apply to the use of such terms in a context unrelated to professional services, such as "architectural supplies", etc."

The only time it is allowed to be used when it is unrelated to professional services to not confuse people into using terms that are not supposed to be used, such as supplies, tools, etc. But, in this article you are calling a totally different profession something should not be called and has nothing related to architects.Ahkin88 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name ‘architect’ is sometimes used in a way that isn’t connected to building and design. For example, ‘software architect’ or ‘systems architect’ are examples from the computer and IT industry. We take the commonsense view, and accept that no one could be misled into thinking this had something to do with the design and construction of buildings, and we wouldn’t take any action in these cases.

And in the box at the top of the New York State's Guideline you reference:

Law, rules and regulations, not Guidelines, specify the requirements for practice...

It is clear that this is a guideline for titles of people. In particular it recommends not tagging "architect" onto unlicensed practitioners' titles. Now here is the precise wording of the New York statute:

§ 7302. Practice of architecture and use of title "architect"
Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under this article shall practice architecture or use the title "architect".
...
§ 7307. Special provisions...
Engineers, land surveyors, architects and landscape architects may...

It is entirely silent on people using any other title. It seems to be a matter of interpretation whether titles including the word "architect" are covered. The framers of the Guideline certainly didn't think so, otherwise there would be no need to elaborate on the matter. The framers of the law clearly didn't think so, or they wouldn't need to distinguish "landscape architects" from "architects".
The State of New York itself has contracted Software Architects and Technical Architects.
TL;DR: Leaving aside the matter of jurisdiction, the restrictions apply to personal titles, not Wikipedia article titles. Even if they were applicable, the ARB specifically says these terms are not misleading, and New York State uses one of them itself. 188.143.76.15-2 (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you seem to forget the reason behind ARB allowing the usage of such titles to the technical industry. Let me quote for you why:
"2. Use of the restricted title “architect” but not in connection with the built environment The term architect is sometimes used in a way that is unconnected with the built environment, for example “software architect” is used within the IT industry. No action will generally be taken as it is highly unlikely that anyone would be misled by the use of such a term."
Do you see what they said in there? "Highly unlikely that anyone would be misled by the use of such term." What if people got misled by that? Then this will be misleading and the exceptional of usage will be dropped, correct? Then let me tell you that people are already getting misled all over the world. Go to any job-website and type the word "Architect" and look how many of them would be related to real architecture, and how many are not even using the word "Systems, IT, or software" before the word architect. They are directly advertising the vacancy as "Architect" and you will have to check the description in order to differentiate between an architect and a software designer. That means the exception that ARB provided has been already dropped by the misuse of that term as the damage is already happening.
And about your "Guidelines" well, in these guidelines they didn't mention any exception of the term software architect, did they? No, they have not.
And if you think that only these two places are restricting the use of that title then you are mistaken, if I am going to list every country or every institution that restrict the use of such a term, I will need to make a book out of it, but here is another one: The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland [2]
"Using the title architect in combination with any other words or letters or name title or description implying that a person is registered is an offence which, on summary conviction will result in a fine to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both."
I do not understand why the use of such a term when you have a full dictionary filled with other names, why the need to confuse and mislead people. Ahkin88 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)í[reply]
We use the term "software architect" because it is a common name applied to software architects. That is not difficult to understand and means it is unlikely to mislead readers as, say, "software designer" would.
The key phrase in the RIAI reference you give is "...implying that a person is registered". How does using the words "software architect" in a Wikipedia article imply that any person is registered? Patently it doesn't.
You included the references, so you can hardly complain that I check them and find that they do not say what you want them to say.
(And by the way, use of the term "Royal" is also strictly controlled in the United Kingdom, and Ireland is a republic.... so is their own title misleading?) Same anon, new IP 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A normal person would not be able to identify the difference. The restriction does still exist. Do you see them giving any exceptions? No. Otherwise @Thisma: would not try to avoid the confusion of the reader of his paragraph by saying "Building architect" instead of saying "Architect". Are we going now to add new terms for the "Architect" only to justify the misuse of the word architect in the Tech industry!
And about the word "Royal" What you have said is not true. That word is used in several countries not only in the United Kingdom, and has specific guidelines and you do not see it being used by anyone, because a permission needs to be granted to use that title, so the word still has its own restrictions that cannot be broken. However, did you see any permission been taken to use the word "architect" in the tech industry? No. Besides, it is a totally different topic. Kindly, let us focus on our topic, please.Ahkin88 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am making an analogy with the use of the word "Royal". why do Irish institutions still call themselves ‘royal’? when the name "Royal" is protected in many jurisdictions? Yet that is exactly the argument you have made for not using the term "architect".
Having shown that that line of argument to be futile, you now just say it is confusing, without any evidence that is so. Quite to the contrary, the very institutions that bestow the term say it's fine to use it as long as people don't pass themselves off as architects in the construction trade.
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer. Hoist with his own petard. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "normal person" to whom you refer? The man on the Clapham Omnibus? One thing you will learn if you are a software architect and chartered engineer, like wot I am, is to be somewhat pedantic in the words one uses and how they are interpreted. We don't have language lawyer, for example, even though that is a common term in software for a person who can interpret a requirements specification.
I can rewrite the Software architect article with the qualifications User:Thisma has stipulated: a software architect with knoweledge of software design and knowing to tell the difference. I have more letters after my name than are in it, but I have a short name. The letters come after my name, sequentially as they were temporally, I wasn't born with them. I learned and practiced and don't show off about it. But if you think you know more than me, just do it. I will continue to try to improve the Wikipedia. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the link you have provided? Guess, not. Let me quote it for you, so you will not miss such a valuable information again:
"At their foundation, recognition of these bodies’ constitutions was sought from the relevant ruling authority, the British monarchy. Specific to the Irish cultural sector, the RHA gained its Royal charter in 1821, and the RIA was granted its charter in 1786."
These institutions have been granted their Royal charter before the independence of Ireland. Your so called analogy is irrelevant. Is there any institution granting or giving such a title to anyone? There is no institution licencing any of those who are so called "architects" and if there was any in the tech industry, let us know. Sadly, there is none.
This is a discussion and not an argument. So, kindly, stop being impulsive and irrelevant and there is no need to take this personally.Ahkin88 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support

I don't see any relation between architecture and computing. I see them more related to design than architecture.SuperGentl (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not a WP:SOCKPUPPET then I'm a Dutchman. Hint: I am not a Dutchman. Second hint: The proposer never properly indents his replies or comments. Third hint: the only contributions of this user are to this discussion.Same anon,new IP178.164.162.144 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am new at editing in Wikipedia, and this is my first contribution in this site and willing to contribute more!

I didn’t think that someone will attack and accuse me of this in my first editing !. Secondly, I am a computer science graduate, I can send you a photo from my College ID if you like ! SuperGentl (talk)


  • Oppose The term software architect is used by industry (Microsoft job listings)[3] and government (including New York[4], as also mentioned by another previously) separately from software designer. The terms Software Architect and Software Architecture have been used since the early '60s or late '50s and have maintained similar usage ratios to Software since that time. — I think merging this into Software architecture makes much more sense than removing this article about Software Architects and making a new article about Software Designers. If this article is removed or renamed then certainly a software architect should perform the required rewrite required by the title change, certainly not a building architect, and probably not a software designer; as neither will likely have the experience in both software architecture and software design to accurately transition the article from one meaning to the other. If this article is removed or replaced with one about software designers then I will propose that the new software designer article be merged with Software Design. -- thismatalk 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Building Architect? Do you know that they are called architects, not building architects, right? but, you mentioned that to not confuse the reader of your paragraph which proves the point of confusing people. Are we now using new terms for architects in order to avoid the confusion? How amusing.Ahkin88 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It proves nothing. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my professional work with people and organizations involved in the work of planning and constructing buildings I have found it common place for them to use only some non-descriptive part of a descriptive name, as in contractor to mean general contractor which itself has no uniquely descriptive part. Of course this kind of shortening of phrases happens within many industries and workplaces. Architect, which means chief builder (as in principal craftsman), has the same origin as the word textile, teks- meaning to weave or fabricate, and has only recently been subject to regulation. More recently it was proposed that the regulation be dropped in the United Kingdom, one of the first places to create such a regulation. -- thismatalk 17:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is quite common to use abbreviation, this is because of something called context (language use) (duh!). Now, you see, dear proposer, even Context is a disambiguation page, because the meaning of "context" depends what it means in context.
But in the context of software architecture, one does not have to say "software a." all the time, because it is taken as read that it won't be Sir Norman Foster planning your cloud computing. (At least, let's hope not.) This is mirrored in, er, Wikipedia where we have redirects, and disambiguation pages, and ptimary topics and WP:Disambiguation pages and WP:COMMONNAME and so on. Or, if you want, just try to mangle articles with warnings from three editors here independently' and we stillassume good faith. The nominator is wrong, but wrong for the right reasons: because it matters. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisma: did you mean merge into Software architecture (not "Software architect", this article)? That could well make sense, and is what we do with software designer -> software design, Electrical engineer -> Electrical engineering, Skin diver -> Skindiving, etc. The page titles Software architect and Systems architect would still exist as redirects, of course. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Software Architect -> Software Architecture. Thank you for catching that. I have corrected my typo. I'll have a look at Systems Architect -> Systems Architecture as I'm quite sure you're right about that set being appropriate for a merge also. -- thismatalk 15:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Information architect -> Information architecture, too. Hardware architects have their own article. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The regulation of the term architect is a recent development specifically 1931, about 30 years before the first recorded written use of the term software architect. -- thismatalk 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Thisma:, merging these articles sounds like a good idea. Information architect -> Information architecture, Software Architect -> Software Architecture, and Systems Architect -> Systems Architecture. Ahkin88 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Software Architects redirects to Capgemini. I've listed it at Redirects for discussion. 178.164.162.144 Still the same anon, new IP (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I allege that User:SuperGent1, who at the time of posting has contributed only to this discussion, is a sockpuppet of the proposer, User:Ahkin88. It is fact that this user has been warned, independently by three registered editors and by me an anonymous editor, to desist from edit warring. The new account's contributions exist only as the "strong support" vote on this page. That opinion is of no value, being from a sockpuppet of the proposer. I also, as a humble anon, request sanction against the proposer, User:Ahkin88, for disruptive behavior, with a limited ban of 7 days not to contribute to any page which includes the sequential letters "architect. I should also remind of the tislation.zz clean handsdoctrine", since this user seems peculiarly concerned with what the law says.

..if the law says that, then the law is a ass, a idiot. Pickwick Papers, 178.164.162.144 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? An accuser? Please, stop taking this too personal, we are here to discuss and have a result and being impulsive will not help. Ahkin88 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you add on to your reading list the clean hands doctrine and promissory estoppel. I am not a lawyer, but my defence as a UK chartered engineer called a "software arhitect" would first be one of promissory estoppel: the ARB could not take me to court for using the title "software architect" after it has told me it is fine to use the title "software architect". Similarly, New York State and Ireland (and the UK and other common law jurisdictions, including the States of California and Florida) would follow the clean hands doctrine or as the good Judge said to Albert Haddock, "A dirty dog will not get dinner in these courts". You cannot, for example, as New York State, emoploy people called software architects then rely on your own law to prosecute them for using the name "architect". Your legal arguments are entirely fallacious, and at last you have seen them to be so, so now you are relying on it being confusing, when it patently is not confusing and the very institutions you rely on say it isn't.
You can leave a bomb and, when it goes off, say that it wasn't personal. I try to imagine each reader individually: what would he or she think when they saw this? I fail, of course, because I am not them, but I at least try.
It is not personal. I am so impersonal I choose not to register an account, and you are so impersonal that you choose to enlist a sockpuppet to back up your fallacious argument. But at least I as a person come to Wikipedia because of what it says on the front page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That means you get a lot of idiots editing it as well as a lot of very good people. You can choose which camp you are in. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well my ears and whiskers. The proposer is now running around. attacking another editor (not me) personally about the use of that editor's "building architect". As WP:NATURALDIS from "architect". Nobody in his right mind is gong to confuse a software architect with a brick and mortar architct. The proposer had three legs to standn on, somewhat of milking stool and I have kicked away each of them. Patently this is NATURALDIS and COMMONNAME. The legalistic arguments, even if we assuum jurisdiction, are spurious, as I have shown.
THe proposer is just wrong, but it is hard to be humble. As User:thisma and I have stated, the likely outcome is to redirect this to [[Software architecture[]] and merge any relevant content into there. But the title will still stand as a redirect, oso he can have his fun at WP:RFD on that one. If theprposer admits or denies that the ""Strong supprt"" is from a sockpuppet of the same proposer, I can again [[WP:AGF|ASsume good faithghe proposer is wrong, but for the right reasons: To makle the encyclopaedia better. It is still not good to do sockpuppetry, as I strongly suspec and the editor who nhas had chance to read and reply tomy suspiciion has not denied it. Perhaps one dasz he o9r she will be a Famous architect. Thisma puts it quite cleary, and I agree, there is no chance of confusiion, 178.164.162.144 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single claim you have stated; I have answered it above, and not going to repeat myself again, even your so called "analogy" about the word "Royal" proved to be entirely wrong.
Secondly, accusing me of enlisting a sockpuppet and now even accusing me of attacking @Thisma:. How can I attack someone I am agreeing with about merging the articles but no, not the "redirecting" part of yours.
You know what is very amusing? Is that I have just went through the edit history and I was shocked. You are totally dishonest with your edits and that shows on your impulsiveness, listing irrelevance information to get out of the real topic, and even changing the support of other users.
The chat history shows that you actually intentionally removed the support of User:SuperGent1 which shows your lack of honesty within your edits. Not so much of trying to "Improve Wikipedia". It also shows that you are taking this way too personally instead of trying to actually get a result out of this discussion.
Nobody have talked about suing anyone, so, there is no point of bringing the court on here. We are talking about a title. That is all. Kindly, stick with the topic.
I have asked you a straightforward question and you are still going on circles; is there any institution in every country that is giving a licence to be a Software "Architect"?
Your only "proof" that you keep repeating and climbing on is WP:COMMONNAME. Have you even read it thoroughly or should I quote it for you like your falsified analogy?
"Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains."
and:
"It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles."
Me and @Thisma:already had the same point which is merging as following:
Information architect -> Information architecture, Software Architect -> Software Architecture, and Systems Architect -> Systems Architecture. There is no need for redirection.Ahkin88 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be necessary from Software Architect to Software Architecture, and Systems Architect to Systems Architecture. No merge is required for Information architect as it already redirects to Information architecture -- thismatalk 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Software architect" is a fancy-sounding job title used by some people at some companies, but is not the normal English for designing software for a living. "Software engineer" is also a common phrase and could work. That said, the nom's UK-trademark-based rationale is bunkum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find a proposal that this article could be changed to either of software designer or software engineer shows a lack of understanding. For reference: Software engineer and software design both already exist and describe their differences and relationship to one another. Software architecture is yet another work distinction in the field of software development. -- thismatalk 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Software Architecture appropriately implies required understanding of the software's environment, including code and platform, and how to manipulate them. Appropriately, software design neither describes nor implies these attributes. A software architect is not only a unicorn rare hybrid[5] designer and developer, but may also be a system administrator, and systems analyst. -- thismatalk 18:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose. We don't rename professions in Wikipedia just because someone thinks only people who design buildings can be called architects. A software architect produces the software architecture. It is distinct from software design. According to the Software Engineering Institute: "Software architecture serves as the blueprint for both the system and the project developing it, defining the work assignments that must be carried out by design and implementation teams." Similarly with systems architect. A look at Google books shows dozens of books on software architecture. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Member of the both the British Computer Society and the Institution of Engineering and Technology I can assure you that "software architect" is not a 'fancy title'. It is a recognised professional title used by both of those institutions, and which I have on my certificates of membership. And they aren't some kind of degree mill. Now I can put more letters after my name than there are in it, but that would be "fancy". It doesn't mean I didn't work hard to get them. In the software field, an "architect" means a software architect. This ia WP:NATURALDIS from it meaning any other kind of architect. The word "architect" is used metaphorically to mean anyone who constructs a plan, that is the sense used in the quote I gave from Shakespeare. It is the WP:COMMONNAME as any fule kno and any job search engine will tell you.

I still see no acceptance or denial that User:SuperGent1 is actually a sockpuppet of the proposer. I made a mistake, I took the last character as a "1", it is actually lowercase letter L. Whose only contributions have been to put a "Strong support" into this discussion. I insist that is a sockpuppet. SMcCandlish certainly isn't: I disagree but that is a longstanding good faith editor here on WP. My brush is tarred against the proposer and his sockpuppet, not SMcCandlish. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet.

And why did you remove my comment ??!. As I mentioned before I am a computer science graduate and I know what I am talking about SuperGentl (talk)

  • Firstly, an analogy about the word Royal has been mentioned which has been proved to be wrong.
Secondly, British Computer Society has been brought up and it is amusing to know that this particular organization does not offer any qualification certificates under the names "Software/Systems architect".
Thirdly, a mention of Hitler's architect which if he was a software/systems architect, we would have closed the discussion, however, he is an actual architect.
Fourthly, as mentioned above about the word being used as a fancy title, I would like to add that there are many different titles that may be used to avoid such confusion, but the word has been used as more of a prestigious/fancy one rather than describing an actual profession.
As it can be noticed from the references provided, they are very weak and limited, or only based on falsified analogies; or comparing two totally different things to reach to an empty point such as; comparing it to unicorns or Hitler's architect will not help the case. If these two articles were strong enough regarding citations and references they would not have had such discussions.
Last but not least; merging these two articles Software Architect -> Software Architecture, and Systems Architect -> Systems Architecture, the same way has happened to Information architect -> Information architecture is necessary if the title did not change. Ahkin88 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: knock it off with unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry. If you think there's a case, file a report at WP:SPI, otherwise, argue against the arguments, not the people presenting them. SITH (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References

  1. ^ http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/arch/archguide-b4.htm
  2. ^ https://www.riai.ie/news/article/misuse_of_the_title_architect
  3. ^ https://www.indeed.com/q-Microsoft-Software-Architect-jobs.html
  4. ^ https://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/prices/7301222439PL_GComSoftware.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.merixstudio.com/blog/unicorn-hybrid-being-designer-and-developer/
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.

Stupid to the point of offensive

[edit]

Who wrote that nonsense attempt to compare "Software Architect" to a real Architect, insultingly described as a "construction architect" ... a term I never heard used in three decades in that industry. I'm not getting into the big argument above here about the validity of "Software Architect" as a "Profession", it is in common usage just the same as "Burglar" or "Fraudster". I'm not comparing "Software Architects" to those professions directly, but that's (it seems) the justification for their inclusion.

I keep showing this article to Architect friends of mine so they can laugh and laugh and laugh. The description of "construction architect" isn't even remotely accurate of what they do or anything in the "construction" industry.

If this article is attempting to define what a "Software Architect" is and does it should do so, what is there now is a lump of sophistry.

Duplicate of Software Architecture

[edit]

This page had no citations and a dispute about whether information was factual. The page at the time was very short and did contain opinions. A software architect is someone who does software architecture. That page is of much higher quality, so rather than spend any time duplicating information, I think its best to direct readers there. Hodl-baggins (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Software_architect&oldid=1238159826"