Talk:Pattern language

message: There is a stub on this same subject at Pattern Language. I'm not sure which is the correct capitalization but since this seems to be a specific term it may be treatable as a proper noun (thus it would need to be capitalized). Whatever the articles final title both entries need to be merged. --mav 06:47 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A pattern language is a generic thing that can be applied to any discipline.  _Pattern Language_ is the title of a book by Christopher Alexander.  I think they should be separate articles, but I haven't read the book.  I hope someone will take that on...  Wordie 18:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a more appropriate title for such an article would be Pattern Language (book) - having articles that differ only in a minor point of capitalisation is likely to just lead to confusion. Such a page could then be added to Pattern language (disambiguation). - IMSoP 19:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The book is called (carefully, I know, by the authors) A Pattern Language. Thus the page for the book would properly (and unambiguously) be called A Pattern Language (book). I have read the book, and it deserves its own page.dilgreen 13:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could title the general page Pattern Languages (plural) because it is a general concept that has been applied, although somewhat differently, to a fair number of different fields.  I agree that there also deserves to be a separate page labelled "A Pattern Language" or perhaps, "A Pattern Language -- Christopher Alexander, et. als." Truthtable1 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: This article could probably benefit from being split into pattern language (architecture) and pattern language (software engineering). --erauch 05:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it should be split.  The same logic also applies to mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, military formations, sail plans, navigation, and almost every other synthetic field I know anything about at all.  It's very abstract, but I think if you split it, you will lose the abstraction that lets it be widely applied. Ray Van De Walker 04:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further disambiguation? 

message: I've listed this article on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. - dcljr 04:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't split, I'd say. The idea of pattern languages (as defined by Alexander) is that it would be applicable to different domains, not just architecture and computers. Splitting an article about pattern languages in software construction would possibly be appropriate once there is enough material on that, and this material justifies such a split. Until then, there should be different sections (but not different articles) about "Pattern languages in architecture", "..in interaction design" (the more creative/psychological aspect of computer science), "..in software construction" (the more technical aspect of cs) and "..in other fields" (if any material can be found on that). --Lhead 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention 

message: I tried to totally rewrite this article. Lots of important issues were missing in the previous version, and I found none of the existing explanations helpful. The rewrite is yet unfinished, so I hope there will be some more experts around .. --Lhead 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoo, this sounds agressive :) ok, not everything was so bad in the old version, but I still believe the new rewrite is benefitial for the article. --Lhead 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite 

message: Nah, perfect. After the last cleanup (or amputation, I should say..), there is not much left of my structural skeleton :(
For those interested in working on this article, I suggest a look at my older version, . It's messed up with unfinished notes, which are bad style for a wikipedia article, but should be good starting points for further writing.
-- Lhead 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-constructive cleanup :( 

message: I would like to see a simple statement added to the introduction that describes the composition of a Pattern Language, such as:
:  "A Pattern language is a collection of design patterns."  or "A pattern language is an organized collection of design patterns within a specific domain."
I teach students how to use design patterns and build pattern languages.  One of the early stumbling blocks some students reach is confusion around the difference between the two terms "pattern Language" and "design pattern".  I sometimes struggle to help them gain clarity.   This article would do well to help differentiate and properly relate the two terms. --Maxelrod (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple statement of composition needed

message: LHead has asked "Does "pattern" mean the piece of text, or the idea / phenomenon behind?".  I suggest that we do not need to answer this question in this article.  Debating matters of etiology is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article -- perhaps it belongs in a WikiBook on the subject.  Besides, if a pattern language was documented in audio recordings, or in a person-to-person retelling using sign language, it would still be a pattern language.  The definition can be suitably broad that this question need not be addressed.  The subject is slippery enough without getting into the-signified-vs-the-signifier.
Wordie 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiotics 

message: LHead has raised concerns that the ChocolateChipRatio pattern is too specific and, in order to properly shed light on patterns, should be reuseable.
I agree that patterns should be reuseable -- in the domain for which they are defined.  Obviously this example is trivial to the point of being fanciful: that's the point, after all, in a beginner-level explanation.  However, I would argue that it correctly demonstrates reuseability by being applicable to the field of interest in question: cookies with chocolate chips in them.  That could be double-chocolate chip cookies, walnut and chocolate chip cookies, peanut-butter chocolate chip cookies, gluten-free chocolate chip cookies... (see where I am going with this?).  A chocolate-chips-in-cookies pattern should no more be applicable to sugar-in-coffee, than a windows-in-rooms pattern should be applicable to doors-in-garages.
Wordie 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should patterns be reuseable? 

message: I have changed the definition to the "bulleted" form shown above, minus the explanatory paragraph tacked on to the end (not necessary).  I have added material and reordered the first few sections to clarify who this "Alexandre" guy is, and to show the relationship between a single pattern and a pattern language.  I am not able to work on this further -- no time, and I believe it needs significant restructuring.  It is currently written at a level that is, in my view, far too in-depth.  There is some "balancing of forces" that needs to happen here; on the one hand we want to be accurate, and not omit so much information that we distort the subject.  On the other hand we have a reading public, many of whom know nothing about design in general -- let alone architecture, or software engineering, or methods of documenting these.  I hope someone can take on the task of simplifying and streamlining it -- perhaps breaking off into other articles as needed. 
Wordie 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to definition and opening sections 

message: Redistributed info between "pattern language" and "design pattern" in a way that I hope causes both articles to make sense by themselves, while referencing each other appropriately.  Also removed material that was highly speculative ("possible values"), POV ("interesting... important... happily..."), or so specific that it is really about Alexandre's book, not pattern languages as a whole (details about typefaces).  I do understand that the guy's ideas are very influential; maybe that info can go in an article about him, or the ones about his books.  As it is, pattern languages are hard enough to explain without any abstruse info that isn't absoluletly necessary to get the idea across.  I also removed the sections on specific fields of application, since that information is already referenced clearly (and, I believe, adequately) under "Usage".  I agree that the info is important, but a reader who wants it can go read the individual articles.  I don't believe the info about software engineering patterns is necessary in order to understand what patterns are, therefore it deserves to be in its own article -- not this one.  I hope the article is one that the lay reader can "enjoy rather than struggle with"! Wordie (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved material to "Design pattern"

message: The Pattern language should talk about some simple concepts and categories, and leave details from
other application domains to specific pages on those topics.
The article should be able to be reduced by abut 50%, and merging similar paragraphs in the
Origins, Usage, and Application Domains would help quite a bit.
Design Pattern (architecture)
Design Pattern (computer science)
Design Pattern (interaction design)
Wikip rhyre (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: Sadly, for all its verbosity, the article does NOT mention c2.net, the Portland Patterns Repository, which
were early Wiki software implementations.
Wikip rhyre (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki way ward cunningham genesis missing 

message: The page has a lot of references to "Alexander" early on but I suspect the page has been edited so that Christopher Alexander and his relevance isn't mentioned until quite a long way down the page. Probably could do with mentioning him in the intro if he is going to be referenced so heavily in the page.
217.156.203.60 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted; fixed. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Alexander? 

message: I think the content here is good for general audiences, but really needs updating, from what seems largely 9 year old text. 
Some increasingly important details might be added, regarding the method and practice of researching, describing and applying patterns, that approach making PL a new kind of scientific method.  It seems to me what makes CA's "big idea" important is that it offers a general method any profession can use, for making explicit the ancient non-verbal methods of holistic design, as a concrete practice of discovering and recording unifying responses to complex situations. Simply the effort to list all the "forces" to be dealt with forces the practice to turn attention back and forth between theory and reality in a much more informative way than most sciences use.
Another thing to bring up is the practical use of PL for documenting naturally occurring patterns and systems displaying holistic design, so the context in which intentional design patterns need to operate can be more closely studied.  At PURPLSOC this year there were several papers that explored ideas for how PL could become a science. I wrote long papers on that both for that meeting and the PLoP meeting in the fall, both of which seemed well received.  
How I introduce it starts with showing how familiar natural design processes and purposeful design processes really go through many of the very same stages of progression as they proceed.  So one can learn a lot about purposeful designs by studying the growth stages observed in natural design examples, especially if planning for engaging living systems.  I don't think I'd get to suggesting any edits till January '16, but thought I'd pose these questions, and see if there's a response. talk JessieHenshaw (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update for Recent Developments? 

message: The introduction does a rather poor job on describing what a pattern language actually is, the language is ambiguous, and it is much too long. 
I specifically tripped over these sentences (which, incidentally appear verbatim at http://groupworksdeck.org/pattern-language): "A pattern language is an attempt to express the deeper wisdom of what brings aliveness within a particular field of human endeavor, through a set of interconnected expressions arising from that wisdom. Aliveness is one placeholder term for "the quality that has no name": a sense of wholeness, spirit, or grace, that while of varying form, is precise and empirically verifiable." 
I think this statement should be replaced with something shorter, in simple and clear language, and properly sourced. I don't think the term "aliveness" is helpful in this introduction, even though it might have been used in Alexander's book.
As far as I understand it, a pattern language is a specific way of representing knowledge by describing specific building blocks (the patterns) and the relationships and interconnections of these blocks. 
"Some advocates of this design approach claim that ordinary people can use it to successfully solve very large, complex design problems." Who?
Bullet points in the introduction should go to a separate section. Description of syntax, grammar etc. could do with some cleanup.
95.91.236.15 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is poor quality - in dire need of a rewrite and references