Talk:Death march (project management)

message: Please do not be offended, but I simplified the first paragraph because I felt it was difficult to read. If any of the parenthetical points need expansion, in my opinion, they should be in further paragraphs. - dprust 17:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification of First Paragraph 

message: This page is in the wrong order, and parts are written in first person! --Jorvik 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "book" article do you have in mind? I've noticed it's copied from here. Do you have permission for using that text? Also, see Wikipedia:Style as of the first person issue. And please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. Misza13 (Talk) 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you didn't get the point. The thing is that you don't really help Wikipedia by adding contents that might later cause copyright problems. We should do our best to keep Wikipedia as spotless in terms of copyrights as possible. Also, it's not a place to dump everything and the kitchen sink. I hope you understand it and please, don't get discouraged. Misza13 (Talk) 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work needed (2006)

message: It's copied from the "book" article. The article gives more condensed examples of Death Marches and core details than even some of us in an Office could. I left in the form the article stated it, since, they are not my words. Who cares if it's in the first person?
:What "book" article do you have in mind? I've noticed it's copied from here. Do you have permission for using that text? Also, see Wikipedia:Style as of the first person issue. And please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. Misza13 (Talk) 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you didn't get the point. The thing is that you don't really help Wikipedia by adding contents that might later cause copyright problems. We should do our best to keep Wikipedia as spotless in terms of copyrights as possible. Also, it's not a place to dump everything and the kitchen sink. I hope you understand it and please, don't get discouraged. Misza13 (Talk) 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from Article. 

message: This article currently defines death march as a failed project. Instead, 'death march' refers to the endgame portion of a software project where the programmers experience overwork, burnout and feature compromises. It does not mean the project overall is a failure. Even a successful project can have a death march. See 'Dynamics of Software Development' by Jim McCarthy.Cyberplasm (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article is wrong and needs correcting as above. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I corrected the lead to reflect this variety in the nature of death marches. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The article in its current state is confusingly split between the two interpretations. Interpretation 1 (project will indeed fail, but management won't allow it to be abandoned) and interpretation 2 (a period of overwork and compromised goals) are now illogically smashed together, leaving an incomprehensible mess and not doing justice to either interpretation. I suggest either separating the interpretations into their own sections, or declaring one of them invalid and rewriting the article from scratch without reference to the invalid point of view - whichever method will give the truth in the end. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's cool but the real problem is the huge lack of WP:RS, and we are slaves to what they say anyway. And we hope that coincides with WP:TRUTH. The content kinda sounds like some anecdotal tidbitting as it stands, maybe a therapy session summary. Do you happen to have a collection of RSes on the subject? A variety of project management books or of projects that were described by the RS as "death march"? — Smuckola(talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing whatsoever, not even a poor-quality one. I understand, sorry. Maybe the people who really know are hesitant to comment publicly on an issue that's guaranteed to make someone powerful look really stupid. Oh well. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Article 

message: This article smells of contempt. And I kind of like it. 2607:FB90:270C:424E:ACBB:C1E:4791:CD5 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapboxing