Category talk:Software engineering

Software Engineering

Software Engineering, is a compiled process having predefined and precise stages. That's why softwares are engineered not manufactured.

Kamal Singh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.131.103.131 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

categories

This category was removed from Category:Engineering during an aggressive cleanup of that category in summer/fall 2007. This category page and the main article clearly describe "software engineering" as a type of engineering, so I've reclassed this back into Category:Engineering disciplines. Arguably it could just be a subcat of Category:Computer engineering and Category:Systems engineering. --lquilter 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Systems engineering is a very broad subject and unless there are major changes to the category of Engineering for other XXX Engineering categories, then it makes no sense to do the same for software. Computer engineering is not a term in general use, while Software engineering is. Derek farn 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Subcategory "Software engineering" belongs at the "Computing" level, not "Computer science"

See Comparison of software engineering and related fields where the absence of agreement is noted. In the absence of agreement, it needs to be at the "Computing" level, where all interested readers, not just those who think the field is a subcategory of Computer science, can find it. Particularly the Software engineers -- who do not seem to support computer science's claim on their field! Thanks tooold 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added Category:Computing per your comments. It would be great if you could help diffuse articles in the category into subcategories. --lquilter 03:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! at first glance, the article Computer science lists it as a "field of Computer science'. Looking at how its treated in the academic world as a guide, there are many universities (i.e. http://www.eng.auburn.edu/comp/) that treat software engineering as a seperate discipline, related, but either equal or outside of Computer science proper. Intuitively, though, there has got to be some term that groups the disciplines that "make computing work" (i.e. Computer science, Software engineering, Computer programming) vs. disciplines that use computingCander0000 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Software Engineering a subcat of software

There seems to be back and forth with opinions and assertions being made in the edit summaries. Can we establish a consensus here? This comment was recently added to the text of the article (in a hiddent comment):

One editor deleted category:Software, stating

"Software engineering is NOT a subcat of software" another editor restored the category, stating (in a talk page)

"People browsing the Category:Software category should have ready access to Category:Software engineering."

I suppose the germain question is "Is the discipline(s) that creates a thing an appropriate subcategory of that thing?" If the categories are treated as 'types' (i.e. object oriented), obviously not. "Software engineering" is not a "type of" software, while "Web Browsers" would most likely be considered a subtype (at some level) of "Software". If the categories are supposed to "help users find information" (from WP:CAT), then is it appropriate to make it a subcategory? For some random examples, Category:Wine has Category:Oenology and Category:Viticulture, which are not 'types of' wine. While under Category:Housing, Category:Architecture and Category:Construction are not found, there is more of a 'types of ...' housing as subcats Cander0000 (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Software, like many higher-level categories, is used as a container for software-related articles, not as a semantic structure in which the only members are examples and kinds of software. (Browse the category to see what I'm talking about.) If people want to shift that use of Category:Software, the conversation is better had there (at Category talk:Software) than here. ... I think User:Rwwww was just helpfully clarifying the back-and-forth for future editors who might have an opinion but not understand Rwwww and my conversation. I posted an explanatory comment on User talk:Rwwww when I reverted (and now see a lengthy response which I'll go read); that comment is here. --Lquilter (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)