Talk:Martin Fowler (software engineer)

message: Errr, another of my 'in my nitpicking mood' comments.  Is this guy 'encyclopedia material'?  The article seems to be describing one person's admiration of him as a lecturer and that he wrote a book.  Maybe he's more 'widespread' than that, if so I apologize, but the article doesn't make him seem so.  Rgamble
:If you think he's not WP:NOTABLE then you should request an WP:AFD. Rstandefer 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler is definately notable for his innovative work on software development over three decades. Check out this Google search for 'Martin Fowler' --- Peter Campbell 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support the previous statements — Martin Fowler is one of the most influential persons in the realm of object-oriented design. --Cameltrader 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise I also fully support the previous statements — Martin Fowler is highly influential in the UML and java arena. Wikimsd 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can someone replace the photo that's currently being used with this one: http://flickr.com/photos/adewale_oshineye/2933030620/ I took both photos and I've licensed them appropriately. However I don't seem to have the right kind of Wikipedia account to be able to upload photos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ade oshineye (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "He graduated at University College London in 1986." Which degree? There is no evidence on the net, that Mr. Fowler holds a degree at all. Especially on his homepage. Therefore this sentence should be deleted, because the only reference for graduation is this very wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.195.238 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: “I grew up in Walsall, England, going to Queen Mary’s Grammar School. I went to University College London from 1983-6 where I got a BSc (ENG) in Electronic Engineering and Computer Science. ” --   MarkBernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible he's updated the page since then as this is an old comment. I have added the about me page as a ref in his infobox which I think deals with the issue. — Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Graduation

message: The blicki link is broken or seems incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalgamate (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  bliki 

message: I removed the following text: 
Even if the source were suitable quality it neither makes the claim that "His 1999 book on Refactoring popularized the practice" nor that the practice is "a cornerstone of agile development methodologies".
Further the following statement:  must be sourced. I'll delay removal to allow time for proper sourcing. 169.57.0.219 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not a contentious claim. The source isn't ideal for the claim, but the claim is common knowledge.  I'm moderately familiar with the pertinent literature and I've seen no arguable reason to think it contentious.  Nor need the Presenetation Model be sourced urgently -- again, it's very adequately sourced in the bibliography. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler’s Refactoring is cited by nearly every subsequent monograph in the area -- notably Kerievsky’s Refactoring To Patterns and Bob Martin’s Clean Code. It was among the StackOverflow "most influential programming books".  I'm having a good deal of difficulty imagining a counter-argument, and an even more difficult time why someone would wish to. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be worded better (maybe attributing?), but I agree with you. I fail to see how this is contentious claim. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither one nor one-hundred editor's "common knowledge" can be used as a reliable source. Whether it's contentious is irrelevant, the existing citation doesn't support either claim. If you revert my deletion again I'll report you for misrepresenting sources. 169.57.0.212 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I think we can easily make the claim that it's central to TDD, I've found a few sources for that as well. I think that's a better claim as "Agile development" has become a very broad term over the years. — Strongjam (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refactoring obviously central to TDD, but TDD is equally central to Extreme and Agile methodologies. The canonical text is Kent Beck, Extreme Programming Explained. Addison Wesley, 2000. There, chapter 10 “A Quick Overview” begins with a list of “the major areas of practice in XP" Twelve practices are listed; Refactoring is the sixth. (TDD is the fifth.)  It’s good to adhere to the sources, of course, but the encyclopedia should not be twisted into knots by an individual anonymous editor who has not, as yet, offered any reason or argument to reject what seems thoroughly established. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Generally agree, but I just see TDD as an easy connection to make, and more precise (or maybe XP.) Agile development is very broad. I think given the sourcing though we can just say agile as TDD & XP all fit in the agile umbrella.  — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing contentious claim 

message: With WP:CITEVAR in mind. Are there objections to me switching the cite style to Citation Style 1? — Strongjam (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Style 

message: It contains a comma. Not sure how to fix it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed twice in Wikidata, which caused the issue. I've removed one of the duplicate entries from there. — Strongjam (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link at the bottom 

message: It has been objected that Martin Fowler’s job title of "chief scientist" should not be used, because he is not a scientist.  This raises two questions.  First, is a computer scientists a scientist?  And second, can a computer scientist without a PhD -- Fowler holds a BSc (ENG) -- be described as a scientist?
On the first, I agree that computer science is not precisely a science. Yet, society has elected to retain the name "computer science" and continues to place computer science departments in faculties of science, applied science, or engineering. On the second, any number of eminent computer scientists have lacked PhDs; after all, the very first doctorates in computer science (Andy van Dam and Dick Wexelblatt) were only awarded in 1966.  Fowler is prominent in the research community, and his work on Refactoring has been extraordinarily influential, one of the most influential books in the past decade.
The use of the title (which I also hold, at it happens) stems, as far as I know, from its introduction by Danny Hillis, also a computer scientist. (My degree is a doctorate, in chemistry.)  MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . Indeed, Bill Joy and Ken Thompson for example. The idea that one needs a Ph.D to be a scientist is silly anyway. Michael Faraday had hardly any formal education and was still a scientist. — Strongjam (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Scientist