Talk:Feature creep

Questionable citation

Davis, F.D.; Venkatesh, V. (February 2004) is cited and the research appears incomplete. The first line in the introduction states, "The FAILURE RATE for newly developed information systems remains unacceptably high". As the failure rate is naturally the highest closest to the start of the project, the statement is puffery, which is below Wikipedia standards.

The puffery is likely due to in part by the person that contributed to the article as similar expressions are throughout the article. I moment ago, I removed "The most common..." and have since noticed "Another major cause of feature creep might be..." and "...the most common sources..."

As I am rarely a contributor to wikipedia, I'm adding my 2 cents and will continue learning from the great editors.24.54.87.182 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

why emacs

why emacs????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.224.136 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be named featuritis, not feature creep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segiddins (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Copland really a good example?

AFAIK the Copland project had several problems including disagreement among the OS developers about priorities and indications that applications developers would resist some of the planned differences from the (then) current OS. I'm not sure that this is clear cut example of feature creep killing a product. Maybe somebody can find a better one.

69.248.248.11 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Feature creep and Second-system effect are distinct concepts which may produce similar results. We should definitely cross link the articles but I don't think a merge is called for. --Kvng (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• No Merge required - both are distinct. Gioto (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Consequences?

The examples here are very poorly chosen. Anybody designing a video game does so with hopes of expanding the concept into a larger franchise. The better examples are essential computer programs which evolve into bloated, expensive monstrosities as developers seek to incorporate every possible "feature", without regard for the customers' needs. As a consequence, users defect to simpler, cheaper products, and/or refuse to upgrade. Search for "bloatware" and you'll drown in good examples. 68.173.53.167 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've used the Sony Walkman as a working model for illustration purposes, and mentioned the iPad as a contemporary reference. Trusting this makes for better examples. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.230.63 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

wrong definition

In my opinion, what's worse than the lack of concept or design that shows in such projects is that testing and bug fixing in the new features is neglected. This is anyway what I'm encountering in project after project I look at, with rare notable exceptions. --Ayacop (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Example for Feature Creep

Best Example for Feature Creep: https://twitter.com/mikewcohn/status/386130337224335361 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brabenetz (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does "feep" redirect here?

I understand that Eric Raymond's "Jargon File" attempted to coin "feeping creature" as a humorous variant of "creeping feature" (though, like most terms in that file, it never really caught on); but why should "feep" redirect here? 31.53.185.104 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Who would "the experts" be in this case, the "featurers"?

"... Written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts."

My personal reflection is that that note is precisely that: a personal reflection. It seems difficult to include certain topics without sound evidence, which seems to be what it is solicited. Ok, what is "sound evidence" or "opinions of "experts""? Who would those "experts" be, the ones that contribute with new features? Same as with Obsolescence. Would the experts be the ones who decide how long a device or product has to last? ...

Personally, having used cassettes as mentioned in the article, I feel that it is not only devices, software and machines that suffer from Creeping Featuritis, no. It is also and very especifically the whole tool Internet that is suffering from it for more than a couple of decades already. And Operative systems, and environments, and programs.

In defense of the article, the term and the topic I will add to it when I can. FelipeTD~enwiki (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feature creep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19961130075228/http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CreepingFeaturitis to http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CreepingFeaturitis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 01:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Scope creep

The Scope creep article could easily fit in as a part of the feature creep article, The scope creep article doesn't appear to really say much other than what the feature creep article has to say, but in broader terms. AtlasDuane (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a merge would be wise, because there is a clear distinction between the two concepts; one is process-oriented, while the other is product-oriented. In addition, a quick Google search returns very different results for the two search terms (e.g. Forbes for scope creep vs. various SEO sites for feature creep).Mgs2804 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In terms of creeps, Feature is a software subset of Scope. It could be merged into it, but as a specific example of it, it may also be better separate. Widefox; talk 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - distinct concepts. One is the scope of a project expanding over its course - possibly in terms of features but in other aspects also, the other is the number of features of a product expanding over any length of time. Artw (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: These terms can intersect and overlap (an instance of scope creep can manifest in part as feature creep, and an instance of feature creep can lead to scope creep), but they're distinct, like "being disappointed" and "being angry". For another thing, scope creep is something that can affect any project of any kind (it's a failure to follow the project plan, resulting in increased complexity or breadth, and thus usually expense and time), while feature creep (addition of a requirement not covered by the original functional specification) only pertains to software and by extension to hardware or other projects with modular features, e.g. a LAN. Feature creep often happens after the project has been completed and a new, revision, project is ordered. Scope (big picture) and feature (minutiae) are basically antonyms, so the two forms of creep are coming from opposite directions even when the intersect and can become difficult to distinguish in particular cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources?

Normally I'm not a purist about the rules on citing sources, but this article does (as the banner says) read very much like a personal essay. The author's experience and views are close to my own, and probably uncontroversial, so I have no quarrel with the views expressed, but I'm disappointed that there is no appeal to published case studies or other quantitative information. 86.19.35.151 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Revising "essay-like" sections

Hey there! I'm gonna be working on this article the next few weeks to reduce 'essay-like' presentation and information. That'll probably look removing parts of the article that are "how-to" in nature (WP: NOT a manual), and rewording to give a more objective voice. I may provide other edits, but those my main focus for now. Wikiscopic (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Confirm hyperlinks are appropriate

I added Wikipedia hyperlinks for ‘Use cases’ and ‘Modularity’--I believe these link to the appropriate pages, but confirmation from those more versed in the subjects at hand would be good. Additionally, I could not find a clear definition or page for "cross-conversion features", if someone could define/hyperlink that for better clarity. Wikiscopic (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)