Talk:Systems architect

message: See talk:Systems architect/Archive1 for archived discussions up to April 2006. MichaelBillington 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving discussion 

message: Minor edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systems_architect&diff=212151084&oldid=207847341 contains an opinion on the aesthetics of the page itself. I plan to remove soon, UNODIR. --64.144.177.142 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:ACM|ACM]] Violation 

message: This article seems like a paste from a hard-sell training course. Maybe some of the overwrought verbiage should be supplanted by a few concrete examples. -- Markhu  13 May 2008  17:27 (UTC)
Most people that live on the planet earth in 2013 realize that you are not talking about an architect that designs buildings.  A reference to a building architect for comparison is acceptable, but outlining how the "architect cops" are going to ticket you for using architect in your job title is silly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.79.26 (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Discussion at Talk:Enterprise_architect#Architect --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal ramifications of using the title of architect

message: Thanks to whoever is responsible for resurrecting most of the original verbiage I wrote many years ago (I retired almost 20 years ago!) and getting rid of the attempts to change the title 'architect' to 'designer!'  As for references, when I wrote the original article so many years ago-- the title was new; megasystems were new!  It was pretty much all new!  Today we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design which should join neatly with system/software architecture.  Good luck on further/future revisions.
    talk:Normxxx    1600, 23 April 2019       
Systems architect is probably a notable topic.  It appears that this text is used by many headhunters to create boilerplate job descriptions for potential employees.  The problem with the article is that it has survived to so long with only two references.  A simple entry would be "a Systems architect is the practitioner of the art and science of systems architecture."  The field and the person are so closely defined that little further explanation is required.
In 2005, the article was expanded by a factor of ten, with no references whatsoever.  Today there are only two. Since then, there have been edit wars.  I propose that the article be distilled to the definition I proposed above.  To the extent that editors would like to pull paragraphs out of history and get proper references, that's fine.  Eighteen thousand characters of unsupported material just doesn't work for me.  Tha AfD is the only way to get people's attention, it seems. Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that when the work to distil the article is performed that the remaining information from this article be merged with a redirect to Systems Architecture as is done in other cases:  -> software design,  -> Electrical engineering,  -> Skindiving, etc. I'll look into it and try to be bold. If I need help I'll start a proposal. -- thismatalk 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References or AfD