Talk:Unified Modeling Language

FOLDOC WP:PLAGIARISM checked 2024-01-04

German language diagrams?

I hope I don't offend other languages, but since this is the English wiki version, would it be possible to replace the foreign language drawings with English translations? The component diagram is in German i think, there other other languages for the other diagrams, they are not very instructive to me. 24.6.16.141 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. The diagrams should be very helpful in understanding exactly what each type is for and complete the textual explanation but they don't do much when you can't read the labels in them. When reading the page I felt very frustrated when I didn't exactly understand the purpose of the different diagram types and then couldn't read the examples. 80.179.212.193 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to update these diagrams should be propagated to all the related pages like Interaction_overview_diagram. --Mamanakis (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

August 29th, 2012... German language diagrams are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgeArchitect (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have three suggestions

1. Learn how to read German and then it won't be an issue,
2. Point-out exactly which diagrams are in German so someone can take a look at either removing them or fixing them, or
3. fix the images yourself.

I see a few there (File:OO-historie-2.svg, File:Component-4.png, File:UML Diagramme Deploiement.gif, File:Instance specification 3.png, File:Package import-1.png, File:Kommunikations diagramm-2.png, File:Iau-diagramm-1.png, File:Sequenz diagramm-1.png) but none has so much German there as to be a problem for an English speaker (he says as a German-speaker who didn't add the images). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think your response to OP is very constructive. It's certainly not respectful. It took me all of 10 seconds to find the diagrams in question. It wasn't hard since every random one I clicked on was in German.

This is en.wikipedia.org, not de.wikipedia.org. Simply telling the user to "learn how to read German" is completely inappropriate. Unless there's a compelling reason why they should be in that language (and if there is, I'm not seeing one), then any technical diagrams should be in the same language as the article itself (in this case, English).

You can make the argument that somebody actually has to do the work to translate them, but I think it's pretty clear that it does need to be done. KrisCraig (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dang these stupid german jpeg diagrams are still there. I think part of the problem is that most of the people who can make new ones and would feel passionate enough to aren't encountering them because they already know about them.71.35.160.57 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

First, they're not stupid. Second, as explained above, they're not really a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

First; yes, they are stupid. They're stupid because this is the English-language site. German-language UML diagrams are not appropriate here and should never have been included in the first place without first being properly localized. There's a reason why Wikipedia is divided into separate sites for each supported language. Unless the article pertains to something specifically German (which it doesn't), then these diagrams do not belong here and only serve to frustrate the end-user and make the article look unprofessional.

So yes, as explained above, they really are a problem. The question is who actually wants to go to the trouble of actually fixing them. The fact that it needs to be done is not disputable. KrisCraig (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Relax, everyone. And please stop lamenting about stupid or not. Of course they are inappropriate but it aint that hard to fix it. I exchanged them with other diagrams that could easily be found on Commons. Took me some 10 mins only. The one that was not replaceable is now annotated with English terms where necessary. --IP Guest from de:WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.102.2 (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Concepts section removed

I removed the "Concepts" whole section, because that list is already present in the UML template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Reeves quote

Minor thing... should the Jack Reeves quote be removed, since he doesn't have a page on Wikipedia? Either that, or a page for him should be created so people know who it is that is being quoted... the page he did have was deleted by SimonP (justifiably, as it was practically blank and weasel-worded) Yoda (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not make the assumption that a page on Wikipedia is a requirement for someone to be quoted. (Wikipedia != Notability). This is per their own guidelines. If it is that big of a deal to you that all people quoted should have their own Wikipedia entry, then create the entry. It is pretty simple. An absence of a page is not grounds for the removal of a quote. Emry (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

German diagrams

Would it be possible to replace the diagrams featuring German text to equivalents with English text, as this is the English version of Wikipedia? 217.35.93.182 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As a start I removed the German text from the image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree.. this isn't exactly a sparse area in terms of finding images, as far as I know there is an over abundance of UML diagrams. Whoever posted the german pictures surely could have taken a moment to do some basic searches for enlglish UML diagrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.63.30 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From some types of UML diagrams there are still hardly any diagrams in English on Wikicommons, sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are lucky, because I am from Germany and I have translated the Pictures for you :). Unfortunately, my English isn't the best, but the translations should be alright. I don't have an account for Wiki(m|p)edia (Commons) but you can find the images here: http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=169009604. License is the same as in the original images. Please upload it to the Commons. --87.181.230.5 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And then an anon deleted an image because "contained non-English content. A diagram is kind of useless when you can't read the labels", which is unfortunately not true. Would it help if it said "foo" or "bar". It's a class diagram and shows classes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I noticed... and I already took a look at Wikicommons to look for an alternative. This was not that easy. As a matter of fact I continued to download the OMG UML 2.4.1 specification, to look what an Object Diagram should look like. Again that wasn't that easy. Tonight there seem to be are no simple solutions. Thanks for restoring the image (for now). I will put it on my to-do list to translate that image as well. -- Mdd (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read in a new added reference (UML 2.5 resource site) that "UML 2.4 specification simply provides no definition of object diagram". I guess this about explains it, why I couldn't find the Object Diagram in the latest UML specification. -- Mdd (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The history diagram

On the subject of the history diagram: maybe we should use a diagram that also includes OPM, a method/notation proposed in 2002 which is demonstrably superior to the clunky and user-unfriendly graphical-crawling-horror called UML. D0nj03 (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The history diagram only mentions OMG related diagrams, which I think is reasonable. On the other hand the Object Process Methodology article could need some serious work. Do you have any images to spare to illustrate that article? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen one in [this document], but I'm not sure if we can use it.

D0nj03 (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wikified the OPM article as a start and added this article to a new further reading section. You indeed can't just use images from articles or presentations that are not yours. You need to ask permission. If you are really into the matter, the easiest thing to do it draw a series of diagrams yourself. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial Image

The initial image should be replaced with just a UML diagram. There's no reason to have an image of an actual UML digraming software. Must have been the software authors or a fan that put that up.Firefight (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have added all images to the article, except the diagram overview scheme, and I am not the software author, nor a fan of that software. I just liked the illustration, because it is some how different. Beside this main article, I also illustrated a dozend articles about the UML diagrams. In these articles I did add just a UML diagram. The illustrating here is not agian just one of these UML diagrams, but something different. If you find this confusing you might suggest an other different image or maybe improve the subscript of that image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing very different about this image - it is just a yellow class model! To represent UML we need a collage of different types of UML diagrams - something like an artist's portfolio. I will work on creating this collage.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I support any good initiate here. I agree, using a collage could be a good idea. But off cause the current image is not just a yellow class model. It is a yellow class model in a UML modeler context. I like this image not just because it is something different. It is a visual attractive image, and it shows (just a little) that UML can be applied. This subject of the application of UML is hardly mentioned yet, in the current article. I think adding such a section to the article , would be an improvement as well. We could move the current image in that section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How does this diagram show that "UML can be applied"? A screenshot of a UML diagramming tool says nothing about the applicability or otherwise of UML. Such a screenshot belongs in the Wikipedia pages that talk about UML tools and List of UML tools. It simply does not belong on this page. Pls move this diagram to one of those pages.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is a section on Object Oriented Analysis doing here?

The section on objected oriented analysis sticks out like a sore thumb. It adds very little to the material following it, and is not very well written either. And, of course, there is a separate wikipedia page for this topic>

This sections needs to be removed. Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it with all these Critisisms?

Looking through the section on Critisisms, I get a feeling someone is taking sides (against UML)? Is that in keeping with the Wikipedia tradition.

Remove this critisism section, and all the material preceding it is perfect - give s concise and clear explanaion of UML. Then comes this Critisism and it seems to become political!

I have been a UML practitioner for over 8 years and I like its expressive power and find many of these critisism to be invalid. So, should I use this Wkipedia page to express my support for UML?

Or should this Critisisms section be simply removed?

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I partly disagree. Some of the criticisms just inform you about less optimal aspects of UML. I think this should stay. I do think things section should be better cited. Only if not, it should be removed. There are a lot more articles about UML. I think this here is about the (only) place, to give an overview of the existing criticisms. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think a well cited criticism section is a valuable asset to the article. My priority here would be to get every critism section referenced with sources. Only if we can't find them, we should removed it... And again I think a new section should be added explaining where, when and how UML is applied. This section could complement the criticism section. I realize now my main problem with the criticism section is not it's existence, or it being not well cited, but that the article it is out of balance in... because it doesn't explain about it's (succesfull) applications. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made some initial attempts to find some references, which seems to be very hard. It seems easier to rewrite the whole section... and some more sections of the article. I think there is still a lot to improve to realize a more concise and clear explanation of UML. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to find references because of one single reason - some of these critisisms are personal opinions.

Example: The critisism "Aesthetically Inconsistent" makes use of subjective terms like "jarring" and "aesthetically pleasing". I, for one, find that UML provides for creation of aesthetically pleasing diagram if the "UML artist" has the requisite experience, aesthetic sense and flair! In the case of any diagraming notation, an inexperience practitioned can end up creating poor diagrams.

The critisism on "Weak visualization" is along similar lines - just someone's opinion. It uses a subjective term like "hard to remember". Moreover, it is also factually incorrect - the same line style does not mean different things in different diagram types! Dependency is the only line style that is "loose" enough to be subject to such accusation, and that looseness is intentional. In other words, being a formal language with a formal spec, UML does the exact opposite of what this critisism accuses it of. It, in fact, infuses every line and every arrow with very strict meaning (semantics).

The critisism "Tries to be all things to all programmers" says UML "tries to achieve compatibility with every possible implementation language". I have not seen this goal stated anywhere in the UML specs, and hence this is factually incorrect. In reality many elements of UML (use case, activity diagram , sequence diagram for example) have nothing to do with implementation languages. It then goes on to talk about "restricting the scope of UML to a particular domain", whereas UML is not meant to be a domain specific language (unless you consider "system analyis" as the domain)! I suspect this part of the critisism refers to the Profile mechanism of UML, but that has now become very formal in UML 2.0. Hence this part of the critisism too is no longer valid!

This is why I am having trouble with this section. This whole section is akin to someone who is tone deaf critisizing Beethoven as being too loud!

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the criticisms section. It was silly. We don't need to start polluting Wikipedia with subjective criticisms. Cdiggins (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just undone your removal for given reasons here. Also it is not the case, as you suggest, that this criticisms section has been added here yesterday. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only glancingly familiar with UML, but have started addressing the lack of citations in the Criticisms section, finding (naturally) that some of these criticisms are overstated even when valid. I don't agree with Kishorekumar -- the software engineering literature is chock-full of opinions from opinionated people (far more so than the literature of any other branch of engineering, I think), so these opinions should be relatively easy to find and cite, if they exist at all. On that assumption, I removed the criticism that Action Semantics is not clearly Turing Complete, after a 15-minute websearch. This WP article was, in fact, the only source of that objection I could find. Every other source I found while searching on "UML" + "Action Semantics" + "Turing complete" only talked about how UML Action Semantics was Turing Complete. Yakushima (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just removed the whole section, move it here to the talk page, and only accept well cited criticm. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try! :-P, but i don't think so. May be this wikientry must put (as a separated section) both side of the coin :pros and cons of the UML.

Yes, I agree. I've visited this article just because I wanted to know whether there is any substantial criticism, not to inform myself about UML. And yes, I find the criticism given here substantial. -- 77.183.251.1 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

--200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

non-free/non-open references

• reference 12

B. Henderson-Sellers; C. Gonzalez-Perez (2006). "Uses and Abuses of the Stereotype Mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0"

links me some site where I am asked 25$ to read the article. not useful at all for me. Is this ok? what's wikipedia's stance on non-free/non-open references/sources? Couldn't this be abused by content providers to place 'ads' on wikipedia to generate revenue?

User:89.217.145.227 09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I removed the link, becuase I think there should only be links to free content. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It was semi-free, in that the link did go to a full abstract and full first page of the article. Not enough to substantiate the claims the citation supports, but not useless either. I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to limit links only to fully-free content. Admittedly, a doi might make more sense here. Yakushima (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not useless. I just removed, what I consider, a commercial link to the springer site, see here, with a anom user added there, see here Dec 19 2008. In my experience these commercial links are normally not used. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

dubious criticisms moved from article page

I copy the uncited criticism from the main article to this section. Feel free to reinsert with a source.

This criticism is more frequently directed at UML 2.0 than UML 1.0, since newer revisions include more design-by-committee compromises.

Weak visualization: UML employs many line styles that are graphically very similar; the meaning resides in permutations of line (dotted or solid) and arrow head (open or closed, filled or empty). The same line style can mean different things in different diagram types. The asterisk is used to signify iteration in behavioural models and parallel multiplicity in structural models. The multiplicity of an association is shown by an annotation disconnected from a line (unlike conventional data model notations).

Only the code is in sync with the code: UML has value in approaches that compile the models to generate source or executable code; on projects where the code is not generated, the code can fall out of sync with the model, assuming it ever matched up precisely in the first place.

Aesthetically Inconsistent: This argument states that the adhoc mixing of abstract notation (2-D ovals, boxes, etc) make UML appear jarring and that more effort could have been made to construct uniform and aesthetically pleasing representations.

Defining a UML 2.x model in one tool and then importing it into another tool typically leads to loss of information.

-- User:80.61.183.71 09:59, 29 June 2009 (CEST)

Ok, that's fine with me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect/misleading statement that the RUP process "created based on UML"

A statement within the Paragraph under "Unified Modeling Language topics"/"Software Development Methods" states that "...and new methods have been created based on UML. The best known is IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP)" is inaccurate or misleading. RUP is a process and not a language and it's misleading to state that RUP was created from UML. Wiki2shahid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

• In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Meta-Object Facility article

-- Mdd (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Abusive edits

I see that this page have been abused repeatedly (some dude just think this is a sandbox) by 210.212.90.86, so I reverted the page back to the last version before the abuse.--Kenneth Vergil (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Error naming convention in figure

In the section about metamodeling , the text ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language#Meta_modeling ) and the figure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-Object_Facility ) are not coherent ( the correct one should be the text...).

Specifically, the figure starts numbering models top down (M0 = MOF -> M3=run-time instances) while text starts numbering bottom up (M3=MOF -> M0=run time instances)

The figure needs to be corrected such that the top layer (MOF) is labelled M3, with the layers below this labelled M2, M1 and M0. I have corrected the text to reflect this. (Refer to diagram in OMG UML Infrastructure v2.3 on p19) ZZZ zzz 222 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Now the Figure is corrected but the text is wrong. Where your changes to the text reversed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.63.140 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

External Links

In section external links there are some communities and links to resources of dubious quality and very outdated some of the, there are a forum with out actualization since 1 year and articles with clear reference to uml 1 which have conflicts with uml 2.

I would change the links, and I would replace the outdated ones for newest. I don't change because I don't want to bother to anyone .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.83.249 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) <--this was original comment made my me (I wasn't logged in :S) User:Aludstartups.

I think the link to the linkedin group could continue due this it is running and is a link with the professional community (is close to the one registered I know) and I propose to add this link: http://case-tools.org/uml.html

The linkedin link is a breach of WP:ELNO as it's essentially a forum. The case tools appears to be OK based on the same policy though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks Walter and thanks for teach me too :) Thomas —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Nicer diagram examples

Hi, could our community produce straight & clear example-diagrams? (And all 14, for that matter). At the moment, they're German language. Which is OK with me, but is not a good illustration. -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think they might be UML non-2.0. And very ungrouped, just randomly in the image-namespace.

I just added some illustrations to the UML-navbox. I do think that is nice.

-DePiep (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor Error

In the section titled "Interaction Diagrams" the brief definition for Interaction overview diagram says "provides an overview in which the nodes represent communication diagrams". I think this is incomplete. Nodes may contain any of the interaction diagram types. A better wording might be: "provides an overview in which the nodes may represent any one of the interaction diagram types: sequence diagram, communication diagram, timing diagram or interaction overview diagram."

Nodes may also represent interaction occurrence frames which are activities or operations to invoke, although this might be more than what's needed in a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.128.85 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

User Ottomachin is adding criticism sections which flagrantly violate NOR and NPOV. His personal opinion or experience of UML is irrelevant and does not belong in the article.Sahuagin (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. Lacking a criticisms section, particularly when criticisms with WP:RS references exist, is bad and creates an unbalanced article. His opinions don't belong, but criticisms do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been four edits. Sahuagin's removing material that has achieved consensus status, Ottomachin's restoring material that you removed with the flimsy reasoning you exhibited above, Sahuagin's removal again, this time without reason, and finally mine restoring the original state. So Ottomachin didn't add a criticism section, Ottomachin simply reverted your removal of it. Your attempt to make it appear as a POV edit is not borne by the facts. Please don't try to misrepresent thing to us. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"that has achieved consensus status" where has it achieved consensus? how do statements such as "Any document which contains language such as "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot" cannot possibly be taken seriously." NOT violate NOR, or NPOV? That is a personal opinion and does NOT belong in a Wikipedia article. I am only deleting opinionated statements based on personal experience that were added by Ottomachin as recently as July 13; not the sections that are sourced and written reasonably well and have been here a while. Sahuagin (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lacking a criticisms section, particularly when criticisms with WP:RS references exist, is bad and creates an unbalanced article. His opinions don't belong, but criticisms do. " Sure, but I didn't delete the entire criticisms section, only the personal opinions of user Ottomachin that he added on July 13, 2011, and July 17, 2011. Sahuagin (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the criticism section as a whole should obviously stay, but the opinionated whining comments that have been added by Ottomachin must be removed, and any unsourced criticisms need to either be sourced or removed. The need for a criticisms section does not override NOR or NPOV. Sahuagin (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the criticisms section should be DRAMATICALLY slashed. Most of the criciticms are so technical that even I, a UML practitioner, don't quite understand. This wiki webpage is not for the experienced UML user. If it needs a criticisms section then make it just a few lines. For example HTML in wikipedia has no criticisms section, and XML in wikipedia (also not a perfect technology) has about 3 lines out of 200. There is no reason that the criticism section should be so huge for UML, it obviously has a lot to do with politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.224.163 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Walter, are you crazy? Could you please explain how "Any document which contains language such as "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot" cannot possibly be taken seriously." does NOT violate NPOV or NOR??? That is an opinionated statement that does NOT belong on wikipedia. How can you possibly justify leaving a statement like that in a wikipedia article? Honestly, that amounts to basically saying "UML is dumb" or "I don't like UML". Sahuagin (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I may be crazy, but you haven't made your case. It's an example and probably one that from an actual case. How can you possibly justify a statement like yours? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"How can you possibly justify a statement like yours?"

"Any document which contains...X...cannot be taken seriously". The statement is telling the reader how *they* should interpret something. That is a flagrant violation. It seems even Ottomachin agrees, since he has edited his phrasing out. I'm having a hard time determining your motive here; Ottomachin is clearly a troll or at least an overly opinionated editor, but what exactly are you doing here defending a statement like this? Do you just have a persecution complex and think I'm bullying you or something? Do you *honestly* think that kind of language belongs in a Wikipedia article?! How can you possibly think that is a NEUTRAL point of view?! You even said that a particular individual's opinions do not belong in the article. That sentence is only the worst example of personal opinion, original research, and strong bias, which is littered throughout the criticism section. A criticism section should be indicating the criticisms of *third-parties*, NOT editor's personal experience or opinion on the matter. Your only possible motive here that I can see is you think you have some special claim to this article. May I direct you to: WP:OWN. Sahuagin (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

References are required. Assuming good faith on the part of other editors is as well. That appears to be something you're lacking today. Please take a step back and stop questioning my motives and calling other editors trolls. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm doing fairly well considering I'm being lied to and name-called, and am still the only one communicating about the issue. Sahuagin (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's lying to you and what names are you being called? If you're suggesting that I am doing those things, please show me where. You're actually not the only one communicating. You're actually making some bold accusations and being rather rude in the process. I still don't agree with your claim of POV on the statement, but since the editor has removed it, that's no longer an issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

mr "minor edit" stop wrecking and chopping and removing info for ur petty bureaucratic self satisfaction u have never made a positive contribution to this page so what gives you the right? leave it to active knowledgable and interested contributors

mr "minor edit" your edits would be much more useful if instead of wholesale hacking of great chunks of content you instead skillfully address the actual problem

i dont think we need to be badgered by you, we know the citations are required, unlike you we also know where they are, does the phrase "work in progress" mean nothing to you? i have other things to do as well as this

Your statement that "Any document which contains...X...cannot be taken seriously" neither violates WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR is flat out wrong, and even you contradict it.

It seems that the quality of this portion of the article is degrading by the day, and is now doomed to be exceedingly sub-standard for the time being. There is nothing I can do when any modification I make is reverted. Hopefully someone else will try to clean up the mess you two are making.

Sahuagin (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For editors who cannot follow, those were the following edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441189733&oldid=441187421 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441369456&oldid=441369087 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441373611&oldid=441369456.

My statement is not flat-out wrong, but feel free to hold whatever opinion you want. Just because you state it, doesn't make it fact. You have not made your case.

I don't trust you could clean this or any other article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care who you do or do not trust. The current state of this section is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards.

My personal ability to source the statements is irrelevant; that burden is on the editor who added the unsourced biased statements. Either source them or they will be deleted.

"You have not made your case." The determination of whether a given statement can or cannot be "taken seriously" is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR by definition, since it is both original research AND a non-neutral point of view. Sahuagin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional lies or at least demonstrably false statements made by you include that I deleted the entire criticisms section (I did not), that Ottomachin did not add any criticisms sections (he did), that Ottomachin's additions were agreed by consensus (they were not). Sahuagin (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, it is uncivil to say that someone is lying. Please retract the statement. Also, if you want to improve the article, please do, however I don't agree with your opinion and will not allow you to not assume good faith on the part of other editors. It is not a non-neutral point of view. Period. It's a statement that should probably have been referenced. It is nor original research either, although should probably have been referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And I do agree that the current state of the article could use more references, but it's a bit extreme to state that it's "unacceptable by Wikipedia standards". That's just unsupportable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased statements that have no references are the very definition of a violation of WP:NPOV: Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. You are either completely wrong or being disingenuous. Sahuagin (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks Walter for your warning. I agree a cite is useful but there is a limit to my time. perhaps someone else could do it?

i've spent my whole evening trying to catch up and satisfy some of the issues. but why should i be rushed into it? (rhetorical) i am simultaneously trying to book emergency flights for a friend. and i have other pages i am trying to keep in synch. and "i'm a living man i got work to do"

i know it's not really allowed to be provocative in the edits i'm sorry to have involved you in all this but i thought the zombie giant fish monster might see reason and i didn't care anyway

i certainly have no interest in the ranting i mean discussion if people want to talk to people why don't they stop pretending and go to the pub or join a club? (rhetorical)

Walter i recommend you cease from this talk also you are being sucked in by this mr "minor edit and discussion"

i will go no further in trying to talk this bloke down or to taunt them a second time but i am not sure how to proceed if this wasn't my life's only contribution to science (i am getting old and it is time to say something) i would follow the course of my son and his wife both with doctorates and acknowledged experts in their field who have abandoned wikipedia editing in the face of such intransigents (sic)

once again thanks and sorry for involving you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit to filling a citation request. It's just a marker to fix something. Think of it as a sticky note to get to something. Removing it would not be appropriate, and more to the point, it's not in good faith. I do suggest that you do try to discuss the issues here with any and all who request discussion, as that's civil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've done quite a few changes to the criticisms section, because I think it is one of the most poorly written pieces of Wikipedia I've seen for a topic of such high importance. I have been using UML now for over 8 years, and some of the points in this section make no sense to me. This article in wikipedia should be for people who are curious about UML and need a quick breakdown on what it is. It is perfectly acceptable to have a few bullet points on what some of the weaknesses are on this language, but this section goes totally overboard. Aside from lots of blatant NPOV issues, and idiosynchratic style (I have never heard of a "Useless Case"), there are some statements that are so technically in depth that I am struggling to get my head around them. Why not streamline this section into 3 to 4 points, and use the citations as the expansion of what is being criticised. I think it is unfair for students and other people new to this technology, who might be frightened off by this huge cricticism sections that they have no hope of understanding. This section definately needs some "Precis Writing" injected into it. The wikipedia "XML" article only has three lines in its criticism section, and XML like UML is also an imperfect technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O watkins (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ctriticisms: Linguistic Incoherence

Linguistic incoherence The extremely poor writing of the UML standards themselves—assumed to be the consequence of having been written by a non-native English speaker—seriously reduces their normative value. In this respect the standards have been widely cited, and indeed pilloried, as prime examples of unintelligible geekspeak. e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot".

This criticism section should be removed if it cannot be completely rewritten, as per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV:

Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

"The extremely poor writing": Says who?

"assumed to be the consequence of having been written by a non-native English speaker": Assumed to be? Assumptions don't belong in the article; and who is doing the assuming?

"reduces their normative value": Says who?

"In this respect the standards have been widely cited": By who?

"and indeed pilloried": By who?

"as prime examples of unintelligible geekspeak.": Unintelligible? Again, by who?

"e.g. "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot"." I can understand the provided example quite well, in fact it is quite clear technical writing with no jargon. How can that qualify as "geekspeek"? Furthermore, it is not for Wikipedia to say whether or not that qualifies as "geekspeek", whether or not it is intelligible, or to gauge the quality of any writing.

Sahuagin (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Enlarging images

I think some of the images could be enlarged a little. --Solde9 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Which language variant shall we use?

It seems that the article uses both the "International" English form of "Modeling" (in article name, etc.) and the American English variant "Modelling". I would argue that International should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, consistency is important. I've harmonized the spelling to the one used in the title. If there is any disagreement over the current spelling, I think a requested move is the way to go. jonkerz ♠talk 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Single -l- is in the proper name, so there is not much left to choose for us. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All I want is a glossary of the symbols

I have a uml diagram I'm trying to interpret, and there's nothing in here to help me decode it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

i will get round to it in the next few weeks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O watkins (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

UML 2.5

The 2.5 version is under development, aiming mostly at the simplification of the UML specs. This fact may deserve coverage in the UML article. Cheers, --[IP Guest] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.102.2 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: the UML 2.5 specifcation was intended to simplify the specifications -- it was not intended to simplify the language as some has thought. It did combine the Infrastructure and Superstructure specifcations into one, much simpler document. It has also fixed many inconsistencies, but made no major changes.Mjchonoles (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The UML 2.5.1 formal specification was released in December 2017. It seems that there are no distinctive infrastructure and superstructure versions any more. I think this should be reflected in the article. Jan Vlug (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

FAQ link

Walter Görlitz, I would like you to reconsider this edit. -- Mdd (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would need a reason to understand why. No reason was given for its removal so I restored it. No reason has been given for me to reconsider self-reverting, otherwise I would. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

I did give a reason Removed linkspam + added fact tag. I guess you didn't understand. Please check the link for yourself. My arguments here are:

1. This link to UML Forum gives (me) just a listing of commercial UML Trainers - USA. That is what I consider linkspam.
2. But even if the website somewhere else confirms the statement, this forum website is not a reliable source to confirm that "UML has since become the industry standard for modeling software-intensive systems".

Because this kind of statements need a reliable source, I put up a fact-tag. -- Mdd (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. For your information. I rearranged this article (more or less) in its current state between August 2008 and Feb 2009 (see here) and numerous related article. So I am familiar with this matter.

I see now. It's a redirected page. I just saw the FAQ and clicked on it when there. I updated the link to the FAQ. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, this solved my first concern (but not my second). I can live with that (for now). -- Mdd (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Shall we tag it as dubious and look for a better source?

The problem I have with it is that the lede is supposed to summarize the rest of the article and introducing links in the lede implies it's unique to the lede. I don't see it supported in the rest of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did some research and found over a dozen reliable sources confirming that statement. I could have replaced it... but I think there is more to it, I cannot explain yet. Now you could be right about the lede, I counted an other ten fact-tags, I found a peculiar thing in the history of the article 3 years ago here, and the German Wikipedia article has a very interesting section about UML building blocks, see here, which more or less lacks here.

In the days to come I might give it a try to improve this article on all of those points. But this conversation makes me realize I better take make a draft version in my sandbox first, and ask for feed back here. Every day about 4.000 people are reading this article, so this is no place to experiment. -- Mdd (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In stead of creating one mayor make-over (off line), I have started making small improvements. Some improvements may be (more or less) controversial. And I have some changes in mind here, which I would like to propose first. About these changes, I will start I discussion here below. -- Mdd (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

History diagram translated and updated

• 
  2004 diagram
• 
  2008 diagram
• 
  2012 diagram

The diagram of the history of OO modeling languages has been translated and updated by me. In doing so I added Executable UML (xUML) for the following reasons:

1. The diagram is not just about UML, but about Object Oriented modeling languages and their development
2. The 2008 diagram gave the impression that UML is the only remaining method
3. However it seems more of the original methods have evolved into the new millennium
4. Executable UML seems to be an example of such an development
5. At the moment it is unclear (to me) if more of the original methods have evolved.

I suppose their are more methods, that could possibly be listed here. I am open for suggestions here. Adding xUML at least stipulates, that UML is not the only development in the field. -- Mdd (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. You should add the images and information to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have add the image here. And I will add the information to the Object modeling language article (or Object-oriented modeling article if the merger goes on) first. -- Mdd (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Who created UML?

The current article states in the second sentence of the lede:

The standard is managed, and was created, by the Object Management Group...

I think there is reason to question this statement. For example Marc Hamilton (1999) Software Development: A Guide to Building Reliable Systems p.48 states:

UML was created by Graady Booch , Ivar Jacobson and Jim Rumbaugh of Rational Software...

I think it is fair to say that The standard is managed and updated by the Object Management Group. It seems to much to state that the OMG created the standaard. -- Mdd (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, while the UML language proposal was created and origianlly developed by a team led by Grady Booch, Jim Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson, the standard was created by OMG. Consider that only a standards body can make a standard.Mjchonoles (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Rearranged lead paragraph

I rearranged the lead paragraph, see here, introducing the following changes:

1. Removed questionable phrase + Questionable source
2. Added an other source
3. Added split in lead and overview section
4. Removed abbreviations

Maybe even more important. I have tried to simplify the text. Most articles in Wikipedia are to technical for a general audience, and I think this article is no exception. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. -- Mdd (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Link [32] leads to 404

The document at the URL http://www.acs.org.au/documents/public/crpit/CRPITV17Hartmann.pdf seems to be no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.22.178 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The nice thing about full citations is than you can take the title, "Reasoning about participation constraints and Chen's constraints", pump it into a search engine and find some non-dead location for it. Fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms/Some dead links

I did some (justified) edits to the article ([1]), which have been revoked without explanation by User:Walter_Görlitz , why were they revoked? mthinkcpp (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You simply removed material that didn't have references. We usually tag that sort of thing rather than remove it per WP:BALANCE. Removing old criticism is also ridiculous. We might as well remove all old material from the article.

You appear to have missed my explanation since I wrote, "Restored the criticisms section and reverted the other odd edits". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanation != What I have done. 18:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE does NOT apply, only applies to (properly) referenced material and is designed to show valid viewpoints equally, not tolerate invalid or wrong content on a page.

Old criticism, is as you said 'old' therefore is not current and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it doesn't reflect the current state of the subject.

mthinkcpp (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, you are now obligated to find a verifiable source for all the unsourced material that you restored, per WP:V, which DOES apply, a Wikipedia Policy, not an essay. Per WP:V I am allowed to remove the content, and have done so, this includes poorly sourced material (most of the criticisms), so I have reinstated my changes. mthinkcpp (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not obligated to do anything. What I am obligated to do is to make sure that tendentious editors don't remove material they don't like for tenuous reasons.

WP:V doesn't state that material that is not referenced must be removed. It does say, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." If the material was in any way contentious or libellous it should be removed immediately. That's not the case here. Feel free to tag any material that needs a tag.

As a volunteer, not different than you, it's not my job to source material, but to indicate that the material should be sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As for dead links, read Wikipedia:Link rot. In general, we don't remove dead links either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mthinkcpp, do you consider yourself an expert in this field? And if so, are you capable of replacing info, instead of (just) removing it? -- Mdd (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Cross Pollination from ANI) Why do you insist on removing the text for the article in question? By the way, you don't have to be an expert in the chosen field to edit an article on Wikipedia. All you have to do is go by what reliable sources say, and try to sum up the ideas the best you can therein the sources you are utilizing. I see that the source in question is just a print-based publication that cannot be accessed via the internet, so you may want to try to go to the library to do further research of your own.HotHat (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on ANI. mthinkcpp (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was in a unique position. I could remove the unreferenced material without violating 3RR. Since that's the right thing to do, I did it and I tagged the section with an update as I suggested at the ANI.

Just to reiterate and support HotHat's statemet, you don't have to be an expert to edit any article. To rephrase Mdd's question, it might be better to add up-to-date material than remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• All the criticisms in the criticisms section are now of UML 1.x (decided by date, all released before 2005), Death By UML fever determined using Wayback Machine, [2]. The 2.x criticisms have been integrated into the article. mthinkcpp (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Old criticisms of 1.x

Why is it necessary to keep the old UML 1.x criticisms, as it is IMO obvious to a reader that there must have been some complaints about it, otherwise a new revision would never have been released? mthinkcpp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The really interesting question here is, what is the most noted criticism on UML? What does the reliable sources say about this, and how can we incorporate this into this article? -- Mdd (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That 2.x is too large, see Unified_modeling_language#Size_of_the_language mthinkcpp (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC), however that is off topic and doesn't address the original question. mthinkcpp (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously a critical remark, which should not be in the historical section, but in the criticism section. Now there is a better balance, and your initial question is answered. -- Mdd (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it answered? (you never addressed the original Q). I want to determine whether the 1.x criticisms as relevant or not before integrating them. mthinkcpp (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION discourages criticism sections. mthinkcpp (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE doesn't apply (only applies when there are two competing points of view, which there aren't). mthinkcpp (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mthinkcpp, You just violate the WP:3RR -- Mdd (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The obvious reason to keep the old criticism section is, that it describes (and to a certain extend explains) some of the developments of the UML. It is my opinion, that this article is in needs of more description and not less. -- Mdd (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Still doesn't address original Q mthinkcpp (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, if it does explain it, I'd recommend integrating it into the history section (for 1.x) mthinkcpp (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the diagram over section be trimmed down to a series of images or should some text remain?

In the recent edits the Diagrams overview section has been trimmed down to a series of images, see here. The former section, see here, contained a series of short descriptions of the diagram types: an overview which can be found nowhere else in Wikipedia, which can help readers get better acquainted with the different types of diagrams. Should this have been removed? -- Mdd (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It violated WP:NOHOWTO, see 6 (3 applies also if Video Game is substituted out). mthinkcpp (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You are saying, that describing the main building blocks of UML in a series of short lines, violated WP:NOHOWTO? -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks", I feel that the lists did.

Not directly linked, but probably applicable "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", could read as "But avoid lists of items or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", which would apply. mthinkcpp (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and by removing them are you removing material of encyclopedic value? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is "of value" doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or worthy of being in Wikipedia. I agree with mthinkcpp making these articles read like textbooks or especially like C++ programming manuals just turns off most readers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@mthinkcpp, we should take into consideration, that UML is in essence a collection of 15 different diagram techniques. It is only logical to describe these elements to a certain extent, not just mention them. These description indeed are giving the article encyclopedic value.

And, because there are so many different elements, a bullet listing is used. But this is still a description. -- Mdd (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Should the (9 year old) criticism of UML 1.x be kept?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the criticism section there is critique of UML 1.x, which has sat there for at least 9 years, and only recently been moved into its own section. Should it be removed due to it being no longer current information about UML (as 2.x has long succeeded it, it was released in 2005, 9 years ago)? mthinkcpp (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Upon removal the single 2.x criticism can be easily integrated into History/2.x (as it was, see [3]), which removes the section altogether (per WP:CSECTION).mthinkcpp (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Part of the criticism section has been integrated (the part identified as not being unique to 1.x) in a new section, Unified Modeling Language#Adoption. mthinkcpp (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove - The criticisms of 1.x should be removed.
• Keep - The criticisms of 1.x should be kept.
• Keep - Other than the removal of the "Dysfunctional interchange format" the recent changes have been an improvement, thanks. It actually makes sense to incorporate criticism when discussing the material as was done in an earlier edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz. Should I understand, that you think this is a good idea, adding an extra paragraph to the history section with just one critical note about the latest version under the header "Size of the language"? -- Mdd (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I was referencing this edit, but that's not too bad either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree in so far, that it does make clear, that the criticism on UML is focussed on different parts. Creating subparagraphs for just one sentence one way or another is never a good idea. -- Mdd (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - The criticisms of 1.x should be kept. The history of the UML specification is encyclopedic and the criticisms of the 1.X series are useful in understanding the motivation to to create a 2.X standard. Most of the section looks well-sourced and is fine. --Mark viking (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - As said before: The obvious reason to keep the old criticism section is, that it describes (and to a certain extend explains) some of the developments of the UML. It is my opinion, that this article is in needs of more description and not less. -- Mdd (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep but expand I found the section incredibly poorly written. After reading it a couple of times I could not really make head nor tail of it. The first sentence does not adequately reflect the reference Death By UML Fever[4] which I think deserves expanding on as they are still relevant, highlighting the "magic bullet" adoption of UML seeing it as a cure for all ills. This history is important if we look at a fairly recent article "The Road Ahead for UML"[5] in Dr Dobb's it mentions many of the same sort of criticism. And how UML became the de facto standard. Contrasting UML with agile approaches is very relevant. I would say Mayers satirical "UML: The Positive Spin"[6] is the canonical representative of this line of criticism and should be reinserted.--Salix alba (talk): 08:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Incorporate into the body. It is always better to have any controversies incorporated into relevant sections instead of in a separate criticisms section. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restructure/incorporate. I am too unfamiliar with the UML to comment in detail, but I support views such as those of Aircorn, Mdd and Salix alba, and in general the attitude of maintaining and integrating informational material rather than deleting anything that at first sight would seem to present difficulties in structuring and editing the work. JonRichfield (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine to me. Maybe the citation style needs cleaning up, but other than that it seems to be relevant information. Even though it's on an older version, it still belongs, just as information about past historical events also belongs. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Trim to a quick one or two sentences stating that the 1.x standards were criticized for reasons x, y, and z, and that the 2.x standards responded to some of these criticisms. Keep the references; anybody interested in the details will have to read them anyway. Homunq (࿓) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (ps. The reason I'm here is that I'd like more comments on my RfC; if you'd like more comments here, please return the favor.)
• Trim but keep references, per Homunq, incorporate into body per AIRcorn. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not temporary (even when referring to specific verified facts as opposed to articles in their entirety), so, assuming the sourcing is still found to be valid, so is the content. That being said, new developments can change the distribution of weight, so given the dated nature of the information, it may well be advisable to trim and/or recontextualize the information in a fashion similar to that which has already been suggested above. Snow (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diagrams need to be fixed

The activity diagram is not a semantically vaid UML 2.x diagram. In 2.x if more than one edge enters an action, there's an implied AND -- meaning both edges must supply tokens for the behavior to start. In two places within this diagram an edge coming from a downstream decision is redirected to a predecessor behavior. Such a diagram can not possibly work as it is an example of a step that depends upon its result being avaiable. The notation, with an implied OR was legal in UML 1.x diagrams however. Mjchonoles (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Has become ubiquitous in its field"?!

I've worked as a programmer in four companies, only one of which attempted to use UML (although another had toyed with the Rumbaugh OMT before UML existed replaced it but gave up), and that company only used UML because our clients had heard of it and thought it might be usedul, so required us to use it, but the company didn't really manage to use UML properly, and certainly not in a way that non-programmers said was helpful. So, feeling dubious about the "ubiquitous in its field" entry on this Wikipedia page, I followed the cited link, only to find that the author of that article himself mentioned a survey in which "Only 13% found UML to be very useful" and "20% indicated that UML was more trouble than it was worth" and "22% indicated that they don't use UML at all". Given this information, I really don't think it's correct to refer to UML as "ubiquitous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.74.71 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If your point is that a lot of IT shops still don't bother with any standards or at times even with any serious modeling I'm sure that is (unfortunately) true. But that isn't what I take "ubiquitous" to mean. To me it means that UML is the default standard these days (2014) for anyone doing object modeling and I think that is absolutely true. I can't even think of a competing object modeling standard that is anywhere near the adoption of UML. I haven't done development in a while but back when I was doing it I don't remember anyone having a serious discussion of the nature "well we shouldn't use UML but we should us X instead". I agree the text could be revised to be clearer about that rather than just saying ubiquitous and of course a reference would be great but I think factually the statement is absolutely correct. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the SEI (Software Engineering Institute) it is in fact the standard language according to Bill Pollak of the SEI https://saturnnetwork.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/five-reasons-developers-dont-use-uml-and-six-reasons-to-use-it/ I'm sorry that your experience was not a beneficial one, but that does not mean it isn't ubiquitous in usage. Dr JohnHRobb (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unified Modeling Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150514080912/http://books.google.com/books?id=odZK99osY1EC&pg=PA52&img=1&pgis=1&dq=genova&sig=ACfU3U3tDC_q8WOMqUJW4EZCa5YQywoYLw&edge=0 to http://books.google.com/books?id=odZK99osY1EC&pg=PA52&img=1&pgis=1&dq=genova&sig=ACfU3U3tDC_q8WOMqUJW4EZCa5YQywoYLw&edge=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Limited use???

The article makes the following statement "Though well-known and widely used in education and academic papers, as of 2013 UML is little-used in industry, and most such use is informal and ad hoc."

This statement is based on a 2013 paper in which the authors interviewed 50 professionals over a 2-year period.

This hardly seems the basis to arrive at such a leaping conclusion!

My own experiences in the software industry as a developer and manager of large software systems for over 33 years is that the UML notation is widely used - perhaps only certain portions of the UML 2.5 (class diagrams, use case diagrams and sequence diagrams). I think this claim is faulty and should be removed along with the reference. It almost seems as if someone is trying to make a case, not develop an observation based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JohnHRobb (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a better conclusion of the contents is needed. Would you feel comfortable in writing one up? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter GörlitzI agree with Dr JohnHRobb I think both the Adoption and Criticism sections are just terrible and should simply be removed until/unless someone can come up with something better. They are very poorly written and read very much like wp:POV rather than encyclopedic. I think there are valid criticisms of UML but until someone can write them up legibly and coherently its better to just remove what is currently there because its both incoherent and to the extent it is coherent mostly wrong. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that removal amounts to censorship. Their writing quality should be improved not removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The policy on censorship is clear: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Censorship is removing content because someone finds it objectionable for political or other reasons. Removing content that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards is NOT censorship its just good editing. That is my argument that both those sections fall well below the minimum standard for what should be in an article. They are wp:POV, they are poorly written, and they don't reflect what are the true issues related to UML. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MadScientistX11 - elimination of error is not censorship. I made an assertion based on my direct observations of the aforementioned large software systems which involve team development - UML is an important, and perhaps the only universal, communication form between teams of software engineers.Dr JohnHRobb (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources on its use:

• Petre, Marian (2013). UML in practice https://oro.open.ac.uk/35805/8/UML%20in%20practice%208.pdf
• Fernández-Sáez, A.M., Chaudron, M.R.V. & Genero, M. An industrial case study on the use of UML in software maintenance and its perceived benefits and hurdles. Empir Software Eng 23, 3281–3345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-018-9599-4

--PaulT2022 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

UML is dead

I think it should be declared as such. It's too formalized and complicated. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)