Talk:Django (web framework)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Adrian Holovaty

The page Adrian Holovaty redirects to Django web framework but this page doesn't mention him. Should it say who created the framework somewhere? Adrian and someone else, I think. Francis Irving 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the redirect is correct; he's fairly well known for his work on interactions of technology and journalism, so a case could be made that he should have an article to himself. As for mentioning him, Simon, Jacob or any of the other developers, I'd say it's best to take cues from other software articles on who to mention and how. I'll bow out of that, though, because I probably have a conflict of interest there. Ubernostrum 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby on Rails mention

"In many ways Django is Pythons answer to Ruby on rails." Actually, it was developed independently and concurrently. Ruby on Rails --as the proper capitalization is-- was released/open-sourced earlier. --81.240.93.46 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It says so in the same meaning, but I agree, it gives a false impression of it comming as an response if you skim it. In case someone want to fix it here's some synonyms fo equivalent that may help: alike, analogous, commensurate, comparable, corresponding, counterpart, equal, level, like, match, peer, same, similar. I planned to use it but didn't come up with any good wording, mybe someone else can. :) 217.145.28.242 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TurboGears link removed

I've removed the link which was added to TurboGears; users in search of other frameworks can find a comprehensive list via the "Web application frameworks" category which is already linked here. Ubernostrum 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just yanked links again; the "web frameworks" category is already a far more comprehensive list, and adding links to specific frameworks is just redundant; if you disagree, let's talk about it here. I've also argued for the same on the talk page for TurboGears. Ubernostrum 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. removal of TurboGears/RoR links (August) - I thought it was an omission on the Django page compared to the TG/RoR pages, hence my addition. I didn't realise there was a 'web frameworks' category - it is indeed a more comprehensive list. Given that Django/TG/RoR are often referred to together in on-line debates, I'd have thought some cross-linking would be sensible, but I'm a stranger here so I'll leave this alone. IanOzsvald

"Like Ruby on Rails, another popular open-source framework, Django was used in production for some time before being publicly released;" I don't like the way the opening sentance here links to Ruby on Rails an arguably competitor product. It sort of seems advertising and moving away from the actual topic. Just my opinion 86.128.147.122 (aCiD2, but I'm not logged in, sorry)

Ubernostrum: The fact that such a category exists does not justify removal of "see also" links which belong to that category. I would argue that TurboGears and Ruby on Rails are significantly more relevant than any other frameworks from the category, and thus do qualify for listing explicitly under the "see also" section. -- intgr 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm wary. The problem with this sort of thing is that it quickly gets out of hand -- someone comes along, sees that the "see also" sections of these articles don't mention their favorite app framework, and they add it. Repeat ad nauseam, and soon every article duplicates the entire category listing. And weeding out "more relevant" and "less relevant" is largely subjective (is web.py "more relevant" than some other frameworks? Knowing the history behind it, I'd say so. What about CakePHP? What about Code Igniter? What about Camping? Catalyst? Gantry? Etc.) and so will be impossible to do correctly, which means that the only even-handed treatment is to keep every link or remove every link. Personally, I come down for the latter, since the category is already available with the full listing. Ubernostrum 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Has it ever gotten out of hand? I haven't seen that happen on other articles. -- intgr 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm apparently in the minority on thinking that the links are redundant with the category, let's just let it be and see what happens. Ubernostrum 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki link

User:Chealer, could you explain your rationale for repeatedly removing the link to the Django wiki, please? Ubernostrum 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't see the point of directly linking. More links don't necessarily make the article better.--Chealer 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
More links doesn't necessarily mean a better article, but linking to the official wiki for a piece of software does, I think, improve the article about that software.
This is excessive generalization. It depends at least on the wiki's content and on the other external links.
A number of other articles in the web frameworks category do the same, linking to wikis, forums or other public discussion areas. I'm going to add the link back in. Ubernostrum 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed again.--Chealer 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I originally added the link, and have re-added it, because the main wiki page provides quick access to a wide variety of supplemental user-contributed information on Django; thus I feel it's a worthwhile link which contributes something to this article.
At first glance, the link to the wiki doesn't add anything since the other link links to a page which already links to the wiki. However, on closer inspection, if your point is that the "Code" label for the link from Django's site is incomplete, then it's probably OK to restore the link.--Chealer 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The main Django site does link to the wiki, yes, but I'm concerned with providing quick access to useful information, rather than making people hunt for it. Ubernostrum 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
For much the same reason, I feel that similar links to wikis, forums and other discussion sites on articles about other pieces of software often contribute usefully to those articles. Can you provide a specific rationale for why you feel that this specific link does not contribute to this specific article? If not I will add it once again and respectfully ask that you leave the matter alone, as the constant reverting is not a productive use of Wikipedia or of anyone's time. Ubernostrum 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] See Also section

I added a "See Also" section a few days ago. Ubernostrum left a message on my page to explain my actions. He stated that Django is part of "web application framework" categories. The reason I added it is that it is consistancy with other pages with "See Also" sections. If you want to make this article consistant with other articles, please delete the "See Also" sections from all of the pages that have them in "web application frameworks" category. MicahDCochran 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about this matter. I think I have come up with a solution. I propose that the "Web application frameworks" category needs to have a subcategory for "Python Web application frameworks". This would be a category for the 5 (Django, Pylons, Zope, Quixote, Turbogears) or so python frameworks and would be better than a "See Also" section that has to be maintained. Is there any agreement, or disagreement about this creating a "Python Web application frameworks" subcategory?—MicahDCochran 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the django book?

doesn't the django book (http://www.djangobook.com)) deserve some mentioning? Lunarmys 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. {{sofixit}} :) -- intgr 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Database systems

Isn't oracle and ado_mssql supported officially? When I look into SVN I see that ado_mssql is there and the oracle-code from the oracle-boulder-sprint was merged recently. This question also concerns the german article. --217.225.199.248 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much bowed out of editing this article -- now that I'm the release manager for Django, I don't particularly want to provoke the wrath of the Wiki by editing with a perceived conflict of interest. If you think something's missing, it's a Wiki: edit it ;) Ubernostrum 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links removed by Betacommand

I personally have no opinion on whether the Google Groups links should be listed here, but Betacommand's removal cites only policies which state that such links should not be used as sources for an article, not policies which state that such links are inappropriate as external links. Additionally, he/she/it appears to have been ordered by admins to cease removing such links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Emergency:_Betacommand_deletion_at_bot_speeds_-_please_review_impending_block

If someone wants to have a discussion about whether those links belong here or not (as explained above, I no longer feel comfortable doing serious edits to this article), go for it; just list the rationale here for whatever's decided :) Ubernostrum

Betacommand was making automated and unreviewed edits at a prohibited rate, and was thus violating the WP:BOT policy. His edits are not approved for now. For details, see WP:ANI#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. -- intgr 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you already pointed that out. Ignore my message. :) -- intgr 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/j/a/Talk%7EDjango_%28web_framework%29_68ce.html"