Talk:Software architect

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Software architect → Software designer – The word "Architect" should be only used for those who work with architecture (buildings). The title of Architect is protected by statute in the United Kingdom and should only be used by Architects registered in the UK with the Architects Registration Board (ARB). Also the term "Architect" is a protected title. Only a person licensed in New York can call himself/herself an architect and offer architectural services in New York. Kindly, note the this page has been using that term only because it is widely spread by people and companies and that does not make it the right term. Ahkin88 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • And also
    System designer
    .
• This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ahkin88 and Dicklyon: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Peculiar UK-legalistic rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose "because it is widely spread by people and companies". This is just astonishing. The protection is to prevent misrepresentation, not to stop everyone using common English words. Should we redact Architect to remove all mention of people not registered with a professional body? Do we have to Bowdlerise "chief architect" from Shakespeare? 188.143.76.152 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What a load of nonsense. "Software architect" is a well known title in the IT profession, and is certainly the
  WP:COMMONNAME despite what the ARB may have pronounced.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support of the move"not to stop everyone using common English words" There are other common English words that can describe what this profession is doing in a much better way, thus should be called a Software Designer but not an architect; confusing people is not something Wikipedia wants to do. Calling someone an architect and opposing all kinds of sense and governmental laws [1] should be considered in such a matter. Shortly, you are misleading the public. Ahkin88 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's confusing or misleading anybody. If anyone wants to know what a software architect is, they can look it up on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). Your nomination implies your support of it, unless you say otherwise, so this is a duplicate !vote. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are misleading and confusing the public. Referring to the reference provided above:

"Similarly, unlicensed persons might also be prohibited from using derivatives of the word "architect" or "architecture" in conjunction with unrestricted titles as this may be viewed as misleading to the public when it is implied that professional services are being offered, e.g., "architectural designer", "interior architecture", etc. The restriction does not apply to the use of such terms in a context unrelated to professional services, such as "architectural supplies", etc." 

The only time it is allowed to be used when it is unrelated to professional services to not confuse people into using terms that are not supposed to be used, such as supplies, tools, etc. But, in this article you are calling a totally different profession something should not be called and has nothing related to architects.Ahkin88 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside the matter of jurisdiction, neither the UK ARB nor New York State legislate about the use of the word "architect" in anything other than people's titles. But let me quote what the UK's Architects Registration Board actually say:

The name ‘architect’ is sometimes used in a way that isn’t connected to building and design. For example, ‘software architect’ or ‘systems architect’ are examples from the computer and IT industry. We take the commonsense view, and accept that no one could be misled into thinking this had something to do with the design and construction of buildings, and we wouldn’t take any action in these cases.

And in the box at the top of the New York State's Guideline you reference:

Law, rules and regulations, not Guidelines, specify the requirements for practice...

It is clear that this is a guideline for titles of people. In particular it recommends not tagging "architect" onto unlicensed practitioners' titles. Now here is the precise wording of the New York statute:

§ 7302. Practice of architecture and use of title "architect"
Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice under this article shall practice architecture or use the title "architect".
...
§ 7307. Special provisions...
Engineers, land surveyors, architects and landscape architects may...

It is entirely silent on people using any other title. It seems to be a matter of interpretation whether titles including the word "architect" are covered. The framers of the Guideline certainly didn't think so, otherwise there would be no need to elaborate on the matter. The framers of the law clearly didn't think so, or they wouldn't need to distinguish "landscape architects" from "architects".

The State of New York itself has contracted Software Architects and Technical Architects.

TL;DR: Leaving aside the matter of jurisdiction, the restrictions apply to personal titles, not Wikipedia article titles. Even if they were applicable, the ARB specifically says these terms are not misleading, and New York State uses one of them itself. 188.143.76.15-2 (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you seem to forget the reason behind ARB allowing the usage of such titles to the technical industry. Let me quote for you why:

"2. Use of the restricted title “architect” but not in connection with the built environment The term architect is sometimes used in a way that is unconnected with the built environment, for example “software architect” is used within the IT industry. No action will generally be taken as it is highly unlikely that anyone would be misled by the use of such a term."

Do you see what they said in there? "Highly unlikely that anyone would be misled by the use of such term." What if people got misled by that? Then this will be misleading and the exceptional of usage will be dropped, correct? Then let me tell you that people are already getting misled all over the world. Go to any job-website and type the word "Architect" and look how many of them would be related to real architecture, and how many are not even using the word "Systems, IT, or software" before the word architect. They are directly advertising the vacancy as "Architect" and you will have to check the description in order to differentiate between an architect and a software designer. That means the exception that ARB provided has been already dropped by the misuse of that term as the damage is already happening.

And about your "Guidelines" well, in these guidelines they didn't mention any exception of the term software architect, did they? No, they have not.

And if you think that only these two places are restricting the use of that title then you are mistaken, if I am going to list every country or every institution that restrict the use of such a term, I will need to make a book out of it, but here is another one: The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland ^[2]

"Using the title architect in combination with any other words or letters or name title or description implying that a person is registered is an offence which, on summary conviction will result in a fine to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both."

I do not understand why the use of such a term when you have a full dictionary filled with other names, why the need to confuse and mislead people. Ahkin88 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)í[reply]

We use the term "software architect" because it is a

common name

applied to software architects. That is not difficult to understand and means it is unlikely to mislead readers as, say, "software designer" would.

The key phrase in the RIAI reference you give is "...implying that a person is registered". How does using the words "software architect" in a Wikipedia article imply that any person is registered? Patently it doesn't.

You included the references, so you can hardly complain that I check them and find that they do not say what you want them to say.

(And by the way, use of the term "Royal" is also strictly controlled in the United Kingdom, and Ireland is a republic.... so is their own title misleading?) Same anon, new IP 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A normal person would not be able to identify the difference. The restriction does still exist. Do you see them giving any exceptions? No. Otherwise @Thisma: would not try to avoid the confusion of the reader of his paragraph by saying "Building architect" instead of saying "Architect". Are we going now to add new terms for the "Architect" only to justify the misuse of the word architect in the Tech industry!

And about the word "Royal" What you have said is not true. That word is used in several countries not only in the United Kingdom, and has specific guidelines and you do not see it being used by anyone, because a permission needs to be granted to use that title, so the word still has its own restrictions that cannot be broken. However, did you see any permission been taken to use the word "architect" in the tech industry? No. Besides, it is a totally different topic. Kindly, let us focus on our topic, please.Ahkin88 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an analogy with the use of the word "Royal". why do Irish institutions still call themselves ‘royal’? when the name "Royal" is protected in many jurisdictions? Yet that is exactly the argument you have made for not using the term "architect".

Having shown that that line of argument to be futile, you now just say it is confusing, without any evidence that is so. Quite to the contrary, the very institutions that bestow the term say it's fine to use it as long as people don't pass themselves off as architects in the construction trade.

For 'tis the sport to have the engineer. Hoist with his own petard. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "

requirements specification

.

I can rewrite the

just do it. I will continue to try to improve the Wikipedia. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a discussion and not an argument. So, kindly, stop being impulsive and irrelevant and there is no need to take this personally.Ahkin88 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support

I don't see any relation between architecture and computing. I see them more related to design than architecture.SuperGentl (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not a

WP:SOCKPUPPET then I'm a Dutchman. Hint: I am not a Dutchman. Second hint: The proposer never properly indents his replies or comments. Third hint: the only contributions of this user are to this discussion.Same anon,new IP178.164.162.144 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn’t think that someone will attack and accuse me of this in my first editing !. Secondly, I am a computer science graduate, I can send you a photo from my College ID if you like ! SuperGentl (talk)

• Oppose The term software architect is used by industry (Microsoft job listings)
  Software Design. -- thisma^talk 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Building Architect? Do you know that they are called architects, not building architects, right? but, you mentioned that to not confuse the reader of your paragraph which proves the point of confusing people. Are we now using new terms for architects in order to avoid the confusion? How amusing.Ahkin88 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It proves nothing. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my professional work with people and organizations involved in the work of planning and constructing buildings I have found it common place for them to use only some non-descriptive part of a descriptive name, as in contractor to mean general contractor which itself has no uniquely descriptive part. Of course this kind of shortening of phrases happens within many industries and workplaces. Architect, which means chief builder (as in principal craftsman), has the same origin as the word textile, teks- meaning to weave or fabricate, and has only recently been subject to regulation. More recently it was proposed that the regulation be dropped in the United Kingdom, one of the first places to create such a regulation. -- thisma^talk 17:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is quite common to use abbreviation, this is because of something called

context (language use) (duh!). Now, you see, dear proposer, even Context

is a disambiguation page, because the meaning of "context" depends what it means in context.

But in the context of software architecture, one does not have to say "software a." all the time, because it is taken as read that it won't be

assume good faith. The nominator is wrong, but wrong for the right reasons: because it matters. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Thisma: did you mean merge into Software architecture (not "Software architect", this article)? That could well make sense, and is what we do with software designer -> software design, Electrical engineer -> Electrical engineering, Skin diver -> Skindiving, etc. The page titles Software architect and Systems architect would still exist as redirects, of course. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,

Systems Architecture as I'm quite sure you're right about that set being appropriate for a merge also. -- thisma^talk 15:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Information architect -> Information architecture, too. Hardware architects have their own article. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The regulation of the term architect is a recent development specifically 1931, about 30 years before the first recorded written use of the term software architect. -- thisma^talk 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @

Systems Architecture. Ahkin88 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. Software Architects redirects to Capgemini. I've listed it at Redirects for discussion. 178.164.162.144 Still the same anon, new IP (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I allege that User:SuperGent1, who at the time of posting has contributed only to this discussion, is a sockpuppet of the proposer, User:Ahkin88. It is fact that this user has been warned, independently by three registered editors and by me an anonymous editor, to desist from edit warring. The new account's contributions exist only as the "strong support" vote on this page. That opinion is of no value, being from a sockpuppet of the proposer. I also, as a humble anon, request sanction against the proposer, User:Ahkin88, for disruptive behavior, with a limited ban of 7 days not to contribute to any page which includes the sequential letters "architect. I should also remind of the tislation.zz clean handsdoctrine", since this user seems peculiarly concerned with what the law says.

..if the law says that, then the law is a ass, a idiot.

Really? An accuser? Please, stop taking this too personal, we are here to discuss and have a result and being impulsive will not help. Ahkin88 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add on to your reading list the

Albert Haddock

, "A dirty dog will not get dinner in these courts". You cannot, for example, as New York State, emoploy people called software architects then rely on your own law to prosecute them for using the name "architect". Your legal arguments are entirely fallacious, and at last you have seen them to be so, so now you are relying on it being confusing, when it patently is not confusing and the very institutions you rely on say it isn't.

You can leave a bomb and, when it goes off, say that it wasn't personal. I try to imagine each reader individually: what would he or she think when they saw this? I fail, of course, because I am not them, but I at least try.

It is not personal. I am so impersonal I choose not to register an account, and you are so impersonal that you choose to enlist a sockpuppet to back up your fallacious argument. But at least I as a person come to Wikipedia because of what it says on the front page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That means you get a lot of idiots editing it as well as a lot of very good people. You can choose which camp you are in. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well my ears and whiskers. The proposer is now running around. attacking another editor (not me) personally about the use of that editor's "building architect". As
  milking stool
  and I have kicked away each of them. Patently this is NATURALDIS and COMMONNAME. The legalistic arguments, even if we assuum jurisdiction, are spurious, as I have shown.

THe proposer is just wrong, but it is hard to be humble. As

WP:RFD on that one. If theprposer admits or denies that the ""Strong supprt"" is from a sockpuppet of the same proposer, I can again [[WP:AGF|ASsume good faithghe proposer is wrong, but for the right reasons: To makle the encyclopaedia better. It is still not good to do sockpuppetry, as I strongly suspec and the editor who nhas had chance to read and reply tomy suspiciion has not denied it. Perhaps one dasz he o9r she will be a Famous architect. Thisma puts it quite cleary, and I agree, there is no chance of confusiion, 178.164.162.144 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Secondly, accusing me of enlisting a sockpuppet and now even accusing me of attacking @Thisma:. How can I attack someone I am agreeing with about merging the articles but no, not the "redirecting" part of yours.

You know what is very amusing? Is that I have just went through the edit history and I was shocked. You are totally dishonest with your edits and that shows on your impulsiveness, listing irrelevance information to get out of the real topic, and even changing the support of other users.

The chat history shows that you actually intentionally removed the support of User:SuperGent1 which shows your lack of honesty within your edits. Not so much of trying to "Improve Wikipedia". It also shows that you are taking this way too personally instead of trying to actually get a result out of this discussion.

Nobody have talked about suing anyone, so, there is no point of bringing the court on here. We are talking about a title. That is all. Kindly, stick with the topic.

I have asked you a straightforward question and you are still going on circles; is there any institution in every country that is giving a licence to be a Software "Architect"?

Your only "proof" that you keep repeating and climbing on is

WP:COMMONNAME

. Have you even read it thoroughly or should I quote it for you like your falsified analogy?

"Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains."

and:

"It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles."

Me and @Thisma:already had the same point which is merging as following:

Information architect ->

Systems Architecture. There is no need for redirection.Ahkin88 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A redirect would be necessary from

Systems Architecture. No merge is required for Information architect as it already redirects to Information architecture -- thisma^talk 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per
  WP:COMMONNAME. "Software architect" is a fancy-sounding job title used by some people at some companies, but is not the normal English for designing software for a living. "Software engineer" is also a common phrase and could work. That said, the nom's UK-trademark-based rationale is bunkum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I find a proposal that this article could be changed to either of

Software engineer and software design both already exist and describe their differences and relationship to one another. Software architecture is yet another work distinction in the field of software development. -- thisma^talk 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Software Architecture appropriately implies required understanding of the software's environment, including code and platform, and how to manipulate them. Appropriately, software design neither describes nor implies these attributes. A software architect is not only a unicorn rare hybrid[5] designer and developer, but may also be a system administrator, and systems analyst. -- thisma^talk 18:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong oppose. We don't rename professions in Wikipedia just because someone thinks only people who design buildings can be called architects. A software architect produces the software architecture. It is distinct from software design. According to the Software Engineering Institute: "Software architecture serves as the blueprint for both the system and the project developing it, defining the work assignments that must be carried out by design and implementation teams." Similarly with systems architect. A look at Google books shows dozens of books on software architecture. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a Member of the both the
  WP:COMMONNAME as any fule kno
  and any job search engine will tell you.

I still see no acceptance or denial that User:SuperGent1 is actually a sockpuppet of the proposer. I made a mistake, I took the last character as a "1", it is actually lowercase letter L. Whose only contributions have been to put a "Strong support" into this discussion. I insist that is a sockpuppet. SMcCandlish certainly isn't: I disagree but that is a longstanding good faith editor here on WP. My brush is tarred against the proposer and his sockpuppet, not SMcCandlish. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet.

And why did you remove my comment ??!. As I mentioned before I am a computer science graduate and I know what I am talking about SuperGentl (talk)

• It seems that Hitler's architect didn't have a formal qualification from the State of New York, the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom, either. What do you suggest, we dig him up and hang him? By definition of
  Godwin's Law (to which Hitler equivalence redirects), somebody sooner or later has to mention Hitler. So I might as well get their first. As Godwin has it, at any mention of Hitler, the discussion is closed. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Secondly, British Computer Society has been brought up and it is amusing to know that this particular organization does not offer any qualification certificates under the names "Software/Systems architect".

Thirdly, a mention of Hitler's architect which if he was a software/systems architect, we would have closed the discussion, however, he is an actual architect.

Fourthly, as mentioned above about the word being used as a fancy title, I would like to add that there are many different titles that may be used to avoid such confusion, but the word has been used as more of a prestigious/fancy one rather than describing an actual profession.

As it can be noticed from the references provided, they are very weak and limited, or only based on falsified analogies; or comparing two totally different things to reach to an empty point such as; comparing it to unicorns or Hitler's architect will not help the case. If these two articles were strong enough regarding citations and references they would not have had such discussions.

Last but not least; merging these two articles

Systems Architecture, the same way has happened to Information architect -> Information architecture is necessary if the title did not change. Ahkin88 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Relisting note: knock it off with unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry. If you think there's a case, file a report at
  WP:SPI, otherwise, argue against the arguments, not the people presenting them. SITH (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.