Talk:Gray-box testing

Not Very Clear

To me, it doesn't seem like this article does a very good job of explaining what gray box testing really is. It talks about some effects and techniques, but says barely anything about gray box testing in general. In my opinion, this article doesn't seem like it's very clear at all unless you also look at the articles for white box testing and black box testing. Alphius (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the article doesn't even have a real introduction. Alphius (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I corrected the introduction, but the article still isn't very clear. Alphius (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gray or grey

The software testing article refers to it using the international English spelling of "grey". Perhaps we should follow suit here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, since the box being tested is not grey, but rather the term is part of the noun, the title should be "grey-box testing" as per existing articles: white-box testing and black-box testing. So let's make both changes in a single move. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is the first time I see "gray-box testing" instead of "grey-box testing". More factually, I observe that Wikipedia's page "Gray box" redirects to "Grey box", while it is the opposite here: "Grey-box testing" redirects to "Gray-box testing". I will make this change now. --Vasywriter Aug. 21 2O12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.187.238 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's simply a linguistic variant. International English would use "grey" while American English would use "gray". Both are correct. Since I wrote the section in the software testing article, and I'm Canadian I settled on "grey" and obviously Netra Nahar was living in the United States or was reading from an American publication when the article was corrected. There is no need to incorrectly move the articles and I have reverted both sets of changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you reverted my changes about grey/gray box testing because:

• They were carefully done after much thinking

• They were compatible with other Wikipedia pages on testing where grey is used in preference to gray.

• They reflected the situation in Wikipedia where "Gray box" redirects to "Grey box", and not the other way round

• Also, my changes established symmetry of gray/grey box testing with white-box and black-box testing: when you type "White box testing" you are redirected to "White-box testing". Same for "Black box testing", which redirects to "black-box testing". After you have undone my changes, this is neither the case with "grey box testing" nor "gray box testing".

Globally, I think you have been much too quick in undoing my changes and you put back Wikipedia to the broken, illogical state that I had fixed.

Of course, I justified the changes in the comments, but who reads the comments?

PS: I also discovered that you reverted my change on page "Grey box". So doing, you restored a link of the form

   \[\[Software_testing#Grey_box_testing|Grey Box Testing\]\]

Notice the "e" instead of the "a". I had replaced this with a link to the specialized page on grey-box testing, a change that you undone. This is just not serious...

Vasywriter Vasywriter (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I read comments, but they're not particularly valid as you'll see from my comments above, but who reads talk pages? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I had read the comments before changing anything and notice that the changes I implemented were exactly what you did in your first movement. Personally, I have no particular national bias for grey or gray.

Thanks for mentioning that my reasons are not "particularly valid", this is always constructive. You did not comment why it was a valid decision of yours to re-install the following issues that I removed:

• "Gray box" redirects to "Grey box" while "Grey box testing" redirects to "Gray box testing"
• "Grey box testing" does not redirect to "Grey-box testing" (like white- or black-box pages)
• Inappropriate links in "Grey box".

Vasywriter (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. How should we proceed? Should I just "undo your undos" or are you expecting something different? All the best Vasywriter (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You should start by discussing what you want to do. That's been done, in part.

The problem, as you described it, is that white- and black-box testing article names are correct and this one isn't. So you move this article to Gray-box testing and adjust the copy in this article to match. That's a move and not a copy-and-paste.

However, the article is so short, that a better choice would be to move the contents into the software testing article and redirect everything there. There's no need for a stand-alone article.

Reverting my edits isn't even on the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To me, the software testing page is already much too long and I can understand why people felt the need to split it into specialized articles. If there are black- and white-box articles, then it is logical to have a grey-box article as well. I realize you have in mind a different solution that the one I had implemented, but I have to postpone this matter to prepare my invited lecture next week in Paris. Vasywriter (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While the other article may be long, it's certainly not too long. This article, on the other hand, is too short and there no need to have an article that's too short. If you removed the section headings and cleaned the article up it could easily be placed into the other article while only increasing its length by one paragraph.

The solution you implemented was to change the spelling rather than resolve the actual problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I addressed all the problems. But let's close the point please Vasywriter (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But the other problems were simply WP:LANGVAR issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Native english speaking expert needed

I believe this article was mostly written by a non-native English speaker and that much of the wording needs changes, but I am not an expert on the subject and feel an expert is needed to get those changes right. -- Dougher (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)