Talk:XUnit

message: Smalltalk dates from 1972, and SUnit from 1989. Java dates from 1995, and C# from 2000. How can the statement "which lent easily to contemporary languages such as Java and C#" possibly be correct? Why would C# even appear in *any* serious comparison?
84.92.84.4 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on XUnit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050819083558/http://www.xprogramming.com:80/software.htm to http://www.xprogramming.com/software.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @WikiLinuz I think you nominated this article for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XUnit&diff=prev&oldid=1226673042 and then withdrew that. I don't see any discussion about deletion so I guess you had a change of heart. All that churn makes my head spin. Can you provide more depth on your thoughts/reasoning? I'm curious. Mostly, I'm curious about notability in general.
For context, your close note says: While there's limited sources available on the subject itself, given that it is closely related to language-specific implementations that are notable like JUnit, etc. this article can be carved into a stub. --WikiLinuz
I do not think that if something is closely related to something notable that it is notable. If so, then I could trace my notability to Kevin Bacon in less than 7 steps :) Can you describe your thinking in more depth?
Thing is, notability is fuzzy; neither verifiable or falsifiable. We all know what it means. We all know it when we see it. But no one can really define it. And, we disagree about what is notable. ... I know that xunit is a thing in the software industry. It is a label that describes a class of unit test frameworks. I also know that many software concepts are challenging to cite, and that some WP editors conflate notability with citeabilty and talk about NOR alot. IMO, it's more important to be relevant and correct.
An interesting thing about xunit is that historically, SUnit was created first. It was re-implemented into other languages and named with a derivative name ending in 'unit' and _then_ the term 'xunit' appeared to refer to them as a group. Should there be an article for xunit and for each implementation? Or just one for xunit that covers then all? Or cover them all in unit testing framework? IDK
What do you mean by: carved into a stub? You plan to delete a bunch of the content? Or you think it should but don't plan to do it yourself? IDK what you're trying to get at. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search for the "xUnit" to find some sources but had little success. But most tutorial-style books did mention xUnit in a paragraph or two, so I think it probably better to keep it. By  I just mean rewriting some parts of the article to just include key points and structuring it (like "History", "Test structure", etc. headings). --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a lengthy article as-is. No fat to carve out IMO. ... I guess it comes down to how you searched. As you say, you did find it in tutorials which I guess you are saying are not indexed. No search hits does not prove it's not a thing. ... It is in fact a well-defined term. Stevebroshar (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion?