Talk:Featuritis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not convinced this should be a redirect, as there are examples of featuritis which did not "creep" into being. MaxEnt 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All this bickering has resulted in the page for "function creep" being redirected to the "featuritis" page. That makes absolutely no sense and has made me a non-believer in Wiki. Basically, it's mob rule here.

The previous comment is correct. While however well-intentioned, changes made recently to the Functionality Creep page and its redirect are utterly nonesensical. Functionality Creep is a real process, distict and novel. It should be recognized as as at least a stub page. Information about the positive and negative trends focusing mechanical and informational energy into self-perpetuating, selfish memetic entities and changing purpose from one user to another -- the information about these trends is still arriving. There deserves to be a page where edge-researchers can accumulate data regarding the further validation of Functionality Creep. Kreepy krawly 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect it to scope creep for now - that seems more appropriate. Artw 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While that may seem "more" appropriate, it remains inappropriate. Functionality Creep is not a concept limited to software. Not at all. It is an all-encompassing concept, which includes the topic of software. So placing the context into the content is the same as putting the cart before the horse. Functionality Creep should have its own place as a distinct topic. Kreepy krawly 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)