Talk:PRINCE2/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update

Updated Quality to explain what it means (as 85.95.99.198) Mnbf9rca 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

A great deal of the material in this article was taken from Crown Copyright documents, which we do not have the right to redistribute. The copyright holder has written to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain about this (ref: OTRS 2006051210004346). Respecting copyrights is extremely important to Wikipedia. Please do not use copyrighted text or diagrams in this article. It's okay to use the original documents as sources, but you must rewrite the information in your own words. Also, please remember to maintain an encyclopedic style - it's a summary description, not a how-to manual. FreplySpang (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article the majority of descriptions were written by me right at the beginning of the article. See [1]. I was perfectly aware of the copyright situation with regard from PRINCE2 and explicitly wrote it from memory. --ChrisG 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened! The last time I looked at this page it was an excellent source of information on Prince2 and spurred me on to get my Prince practitioner qualification. Looking at the comments above it seems that all the excellent information was deleted due to copyright. I would be interested in writing some material for this article but can anyone give guidance as to what can be included and what's likely to be deleted? For example, can one refer to the fact that Prince has the following components: Business Case, Organisation, Plans, Controls, Management of Risk, Quality, Configuration Management and Change Control. Are we allowed to refer to the sub-processes by name. I appreciate the comment from FreplySpang about it should be an encyclopedia rather than a how to manual but the current article is very light indeed. (By the way, this is my first post on wikipedia so don't know if I'm doing the right thing here.) Wikikob 11:34 Tuesday 15-Aug-06

I've added a citation needed note to the claim that Prince is being used in 50 countries. Does anyone know where this claim came from? I've also deleted some links to Prince training providers. I don't think this is what Wikipedia is about. Wikikob 15:20 Wednesday 23-Aug-06

There's not been much comment on my comments on this talk page so I have gone ahead and more-or-less rewritten the article. I hope that it passes muster. This is my first major edit on Wiki so am not totally au fait with the formatting rules. Wikikob 09:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article uses copyrighted material. The pictures shown are not complete and contain errors. Rlkrooshof 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Project, Sub-process, Stage

These three important words are used but not explained. As a nitwit I have a hard time to derive from the text the meaning of these three words, and their differences. Can someone with knowledge of Prince2 please explain and add to the article? Many thanks! 131.211.42.152 09:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of the article that was felt to breach Crown Copyright. I think it's pathetic that Prince2, funded by tax payers, shouldn't be publically available as an open standard. Personally, based on the article that was removed, this one will also breach their precious copyright.

I just went through the article. It needs so much of work. I have started by adding a few things in the Lead Section. I have added the definition of Project and its characteristics and why it is needed. With time I would try to make it a more comprehensive page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultapultanikhil (talk • contribs) 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP treatment of PRINCE2

Assuming that PRINCE2 and its elements are valid topics for some degree of Wikipedia coverage, then the question is how best to cover them. It seems at present that the coverage is very patchy. For example, there is this quite reasonable overview article on PRINCE2. There's a long and rather rambling article on the Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) process. But there isn't an article for, say, the Initiating a Project (IP) process. A sensible structure might have a medium-length article for each of the 8 processes and the 3 specific techniques, along with shorter ones for the 8 components and for some for key PRINCE2 management products.

The goal here is not to rewrite the PRINCE2 manual, but to give enough understanding for the general reader. Hopefully we can cover all the PRINCE2 elements in enough detail to make it clear how PRINCE2 works. Some of these articles have enough overlap with other PM methodologies (or with ITIL) that it would be better to treat the PRINCE2 material as a section within an existing article.

It's obviously a copyright breach to reuse any extensive wording or to copy graphics from OGC materials, but it should be acceptable to describe PRINCE2, and to use PRINCE2's own terminology where appropriate. Fair use also means brief quotes from Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 are entirely reasonable.

Because all these terms have a usage outside PRINCE2, I think some care is needed to distinguish their specific meaning. I'd suggest capitalising the names of processes, sub-processes, and required management products. Also, titles for the lower-level articles will need to be distinguished from regular use of the same term. I'll suggest the following templates, but others may have different views:

Thoughts? Rupert Clayton 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative home for the PRINCE2 wiki

Hi Everyone,

I am a PRINCE2 trainer and run a PRINCE2 training organisation in Australia called crazycolour.com Crazy Colour (CC Consulting). The content on our website was created from scratch and covers all the PRINCE2(TM) processes, components and techniques. This resource forms part of our pre-course reading for training courses and is used to help people implement and use PRINCE2. We are, in the next few weeks, going to make it available to the public to edit in our p2 wiki. Being open about Crazy Colour content is nothing new: we have had a website with PRINCE2 content for the past 4 years and provided the free Crazy Colour Card for PRINCE2 Processes for download for longer than that. The move to a wiki format is an overdue but natural progression of this.

Please note that we are certainly not trying to reproduce the OGC title "Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2". Our website will be a Crazy Colour perspective of PRINCE2(TM) based on trainer experience, the public's contribution and those aspects that the APMG(TM) sees as important to achieving benefits on time, on budget and to a required level of quality via the delivery of a project.

CC Consulting will review and monitor the content using trainers and consultants, updating the content when a new manual version is released. We have existing relationships with the OGC and will comply with requests from them regarding copyright, helping them to contribute to the PRINCE2(TM) community. Navigating copyright issue can seem daunting and I think that the removal of past content on Wikipedia is a good example of the consequences of avoiding such requirements.

As as start we provide permission to link to our PRINCE2 content from Wikipedia and will encourage the community to contribute. Our plan is to clearly state when a concept or edit is not in line with the current PRINCE2 manual.

I would appreciate any comments or questions regarding my offer, either via this mediawiki PRINCE2 Talk page or direct [via email]

Please note: Crazy Colour™ is a trademark of CC Consulting. © CC Consulting Ltd, London, United Kingdom, Company No. 04519515. Crazy Colour is an ATO for PRINCE2. PRINCE® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries. PRINCE2™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce.

Scott Spence 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a blatant request to add linkspam from an overtly commercial organization. There are several exisitng PRINCE2 wikis already, which are not linked to. So the answer from my perspective is no.

Request for Comment: Elimination of spam in external links

Many of the external links on the Prince2 article are simply spam. There has been discussion on this topic before (see above in the section "External Links") but one anonymous user consistently argues strongly for their retention. For this reason we cannot accept anonymous comments as part of this RFC process.

Interesting. Who is this "WE" as in "we cannot accept anonymous comments" I wonder? It is our friend Wikikob, who created his almost anonymous account recently and has made almost no contributions to Wikipedia, unless you count deleting existing content!
Please do not abuse the rules like this, in pursuit of your mission.

Please take a look at the links and comment on whether the links appear to be spam or not (or spam leaders). Note: Some of these links (e.g. the first two!) are obvious links to keep. The links currently are as follows: 

   * The Official PRINCE2 website
   * The OGC's PRINCE2 site
   * The PRINCE2 Successful Candidate Register
   * The OGC officially recognised User Group
   * The PRINCE2 User Group Forum
   * PRINCE2 Wiki
   * Prince2 TiddlyWiki complete
   * Mini-Method for small projects
   * PRINCE2 Guide - A to Z, FAQ and 1000+ Exam Questions
   * Prince2 2005 Changes and Product & Process Matrix
   * Prince2 Tube Map - Complete Process Diagram
Most look fine to me. I seem to be in the majority from reading all the previous comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 19:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
I would also add that contrary to the comments made by WikiKob on another page, the above was my first post and I am not a spammer. This is offensive. And note that there are clearly a number of contributors supporting retention of those links, such as Stevo, PRINCEAndy and others.
Statements like "I am determined not to let him beat me" made by Wikikob on that other page are also of concern as they illustrate a mission other than to contribute to the quality of the page.
This is not an issue of WikiBob against the Anonymous users. There is a policy in place at Wikipedia:External Links. If anyone has an issue with what should be kept and what should be deleted, then argue with the policy, not the links on this page. As such, the following should be removed. I bolded the ones that appear to me to be relevant here.
  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
I hope that this list, already a Wikipedia policy, helps guide the editors of this page to come to a consensus about which links should remain and which should be removed. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As a vaguely interested party (I have Prince2!), the first 4 only need to be there. The rest are either advertising, barely used forums, or poor-quality wikis with more adverts than editors. I have edited to match. I have books and books about PRINCE2, but don't edit this sort of page much because I see enough of it in work - if any references etc are needed, drop me a line. Neil ム 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kainaw & Neil for your contributions and thanks Neil for actually deleting all that spam. That anonymous user seems to be taking pot shots at me that I feel I must correct. He says "our friend Wikikob, who created his almost anonymous account recently and has made almost no contributions to Wikipedia" - this is, of course, completely untrue and the best way to counter this allegation is to point to my contribution list that shows how I've contributed and also that I have been active on WP under this username since 2004. I fully expect the anonymous user to revert Neil's change in a few days but I'll be keeping an eye on the Prince2 page from now on. Wikikob 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is important. Changes should be applied when consensus is reached. In fact it is extremely ignorant to simply dive in and delete prior to this. Consensus is certainly not with removal, as comments from several anonymous users, Stevo and PRINCE2Andy illustrate.
Wikikob is in an unseemly hurry to delete them, hence the unacceptable allegations made regarding myself and others. The recent edit history of that user makes very interesting reading. Whatever the mission is here, please follow Wikipedia protocols at all times. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Correct. The consensus is that links to user groups, sites with heavy advertising, and small wikis should not be in any article on Wikipedia. If you are against such a consensus, go to Wikipedia:External Links and voice your opinion on the matter. -- Kainaw(what?) 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And the ongoing debate is actually whether the links here fit into those particular categories, which are general but which you mis-quote by the way. There is also the issue of value add, which is also general. This is why debate and consensus is sought in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 21:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I note 208.110 has added the links again. We have a policy on external links for a reason, and so I have removed them again. If the anonymous user adds them again, I'll prevent them from editing this article (either via protection or via blocking their editing privileges). This is not a content dispute, this is not a debate, this is the application of Wikipedia policy to what is and is not acceptable. Links to wikis, forums and the like are not acceptable, per the above list, so they will remain gone. Neil ム 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(churlish personal attack by IP removed) Neil ム 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor Wikikob (talk · contribs) has asked me to re-review the links here again and revisit the topic that seems to have dropped off my radar several months ago. To start with, I've looked at each site again and I don't think my opinions have changed much; most are either ultra low content, copied from other available sources, or simple and blatant spam as noted above. I'm still in agreement that the first four seem fine.

Of course, I'm not sure how much of this conversation is about individual links as it is about personal attacks and odd indignation. I'm afraid that my assumption of good faith in simply reverting back to a list of links which includes at least one blatant commercial example is becoming exhausted and concur with Neil. I would ask that those proposing an extensive directory of links please list specific links to add and why instead of generalized rants, please. Kuru talk 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC, I see no response to Kuru's request a week later. I second Kuru's suggestion: before adding links back, have a discussion on the talk page. VisitorTalk 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry is great example of the sad decline of Wikipedia

I've just attempted to turn an almost completely incomprehensible sentence in this article into something vaguely approaching English. Not sure that I've succeeded, but I think that the original problem was caused by the author attempting to squeeze in hyperlinks to other wikipediea articles that really didn't need to be there and completely losing touch with any idea of syntax as a result!

I've looked at a number of articles recently which seem to have gradually deteriorated over time - this really points up the problems of editing by committee, particularly when that committee consists of millions of people spread around the world. Entropy is setting in and articles which were once valuable are now beginning to read like utter garbage. I don't know if there's really a solution to this other than a complete rewrite of the articles in question so, at the very least, they actually make some sense to readers. Seems to me that any feasible solution would involve losing what made wikipedia so good in the first place.

Hey ho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.85.174 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to update the page with teh new Practitioner exam info and the correction re the defeicits of Prnce2...all gloriously undone124.191.33.29 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Prince2 failed spectacularly and why is it not open source?

Not so long ago I was told that Prince2 was required for all uk government projects. However, quite a few of these projects have failed, notably the NHS database and ID cards running out of control on price.

Do these failures point at an inherent problem with Prince2 or do they indicate that Prince2 was not in fact used?

More likely, they point to an inherent problem with the UK government with projects that are initiated for political reasons.
- Anon UK Taxpayer, who's had experience with software dev on UK government projects

Also, if Prince2 is so very important in project management, why is it not all on the web already? Some people might still buy the books! Mike0001 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More Detail Required

Whilst I appreciate that we cannot reproduce Crown Copyright without permission, this article is of disappointing quality and does not adequately explain the method, processes and techniques to someone not already familiar with Prince2.

For example, I was hoping to link (from elsewhere) to a description of the quality review technique. In this article, the page links to a general article on quality assurance - which is misleading and incorrect.

Having reviewed the earlier version from 2006, I suggest a constructive approach would be to edit / re-write the previous article addressing any copyright concerns. The Prince2 manual is an extensive source and we must be able to summarise its contents in plain english without upsetting the OGC.

I see a couple of options for this. We could:

  • start by taking sections that are simply too general to be offensive and migrating back in
  • priorise and update the one or two most important sections first

Update: By way of example, I've added a small subsection on quality review technique, taking the original content from 2006 and re-writing in my own words.

Opinions / feedback welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmckeever (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the definition of project and its characteristics. I think you cannot have a PRINCE2 page without defining what exactly a project is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultapultanikhil (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition of Project has been removed saying it is a generic definition and should not be a part of PRINCE2 page. I don't agree to this. If you are talking about any project management technique, you should first of all define what a project is. Try thinking like someone who has no idea about this subject and visits this page. Shouldn't he be made aware of the definition of Project?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultapultanikhil (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If I was writing a book or a term paper, maybe. This is an online encyclopedia; if readers are unclear on certain terms, they can click on the blue links to explore topics further. There is no need to repeat the contents of project or project management here. Kuru (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I came needing to get an overview- and three minutes later I had got it. Nice terse writing- an efficient learning experience. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; it's nice to see positive feedback on an article
Do you think there's anything about the article that could be improved? bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PRINCE2/Archives/2012&oldid=1088448884"