Talk:OpenSearch (software)

Computing: Software / Websites / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 12 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Primary topic not established. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSearch (software) → OpenSearch
OpenSearch → OpenSearch (syndication)

– I propose that we move OpenSearch to OpenSearch (syndication) and OpenSearch (software) to OpenSearch (with a hatnote disambiguation link) because the software project is now better-known than the syndication protocol and is almost always what users are searching for. Because I am a product manager on the OpenSearch project and therefore have a conflict of interest, I am not making the move myself.

The OpenSearch web search syndication protocol was defined in 2005 by A9, part of Amazon.com; it continues to be used. Amazon Web Services, also part of Amazon.com, initiated the open source OpenSearch search engine software project in April 2021, and it is growing rapidly. The OpenSearch trademark is owned by Amazon. The transfer of the name from the syndication protocol to the software project is supported by the maintainer of the syndication protocol.

Under our Article titles policy, when two topics have the same name, if one of them is the primary topic, that topic should use the unqualified title, in this case, OpenSearch. The primary topic is defined as:

A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Here is some data showing that the software project is primary with respect to usage:

In Google Trends, the term [opensearch] was rated 1.5 from 2017-2020, and rapidly gained in popularity after the OpenSearch project was announced in April 2021. By the end of 2021, it averaged around 50, and for all of 2022 so far, it has averaged 71. Since there has been no recent activity around the protocol, we can infer that the difference between the current level and the stable pre-2021 level represents interest in the project, showing that the project is about 46x more popular as a search topic than the syndication protocol. The Related topics and Related queries also show that the term is being used for the software project.
In Google Search (tested in an incognito window), only one result of the top 10 (the sixth) is about the protocol. That is, Google’s algorithms estimate that the project is of much more interest to searchers than the protocol.
On Github, the software project repo has about 10x more stars and 2x more watches than the protocol, showing interest among developers.
On Wikipedia, pageviews for the project have been increasing steadily, and are now about 70% higher than for the protocol.

I don’t have a crystal ball to predict long-term significance, but the protocol is a more niche interest – primarily among developers of browsers and Web search syndication systems – than the software, which is already widely used.

Other things called OpenSearch are much less common: OpenSearchServer gets under 10% as many pageviews as either of the main ones, and the Open Search Foundation does not have a Wikipedia article.

From the above data, it seems clear that the software project is now the primary topic by a large factor, so it should be at the title OpenSearch. The syndication protocol can use the disambiguated form OpenSearch (syndication). Macrakis (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The fact that these two projects are both computing-related (and also both started by Amazon) makes moving them potentially dangerous and confusing.

Recently, I emailed someone asking them to implement OpenSearch (the standard) on their website, and linked to the Wikipedia URL for it. If this move caused the URL to redirect to the Elasticsearch fork, they're going to be really confused. Even the maintainer of the Opensearch standard suggested using a disambiguation page for opensearch.org for a while. If someone's looking for the Elasticsearch fork, I think the disambiguation heading at the top of the article is sufficient. Moving the article titles breaks links unnecessarily. Wrong Useful (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other points. In regards to usage, I'd argue that OpenSearch (the standard) is much more ubiquitous than the Elasticsearch fork. Chrome (with its "tab-to-search" feature), Firefox, and Microsoft Edge all support OpenSearch by default. So it's likely that almost all people using the web on a desktop are using software that supports OpenSearch. OpenSearch (the Elasticsearch fork) is generally only used by certain developers developing search products, and even then OpenSearch (the fork) is much less popular than Elasticsearch. So very few people will come into contact with OpenSearch (the fork).

In regards to long-term significance, OpenSearch (the standard) has been around for about 16 years, and remained relatively stable. It's a standard that many people have agreed upon and implemented. The Elasticsearch fork has been around only for about a year now, and it was created due to the uncertainty of Elasticsearch's licensing. It's unclear whether Amazon's fork will remain dominant in a few years time, or realize a fate similar to OpenOffice.org vs LibreOffice. Wrong Useful (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd, weak oppose on 1st. The software has 1,656 views compared with only 925[[1]] for the syndication so a DAB may be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I would concur with Wrong Useful that the OpenSearch standard is used by almost everyone with a web browser, and likely will be for some time. Comparing traffic of a long-established standard with a 1-year-old piece of software with a ongoing marketing push behind it seems unreasonable. We would need to look at traffic from 2005-2006 when it was also one year old, and also take into account that SEO and software marketing wasn't nearly as ubiqutious and cutthroat as it is today. And even then, search popularity doesn't mean we should replace the apple article with Apple, Inc.

Amazon's marketing deparment would deeply love for everyone to forget they created the OpenSearch standard and join their current push to redefine the meaning of their trademark, in their struggle against Elasticsearch for the mindshare of trendy web developers. They would also love search engines to show the OpenSearch (software) infobox when someone searches for "opensearch", rather than the OpenSearch infobox... which is something they should take up with the search engines, not Wikipedia. 146.198.110.23 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The definition of "usage" has to do with "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" and not with how often the technology is used or how much traffic it supports. The Google Trends data above seem to show that the software is searched for over 46x more often than the syndication protocols. --Macrakis (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by searching "opensearch" on https://encrypted.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en&pws=0 and https://startpage.com, all the results in the first page refers to the topic currently covered in OpenSearch (software). Results in the news page also refer to OpenSearch (software). People also showed evidence that the term OpenSearch became more popular when Amazon rebranded its Elastic fork to OpenSearch. All this means OpenSearch (software) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for OpenSearch. Iara Ai (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Google hits isn't sufficient (WP:GHITS) for establishing a primary topic. A Google and Startpage search also show all results for "apple" being the company, but as another editor noted this doesn't mean it should be the main use of "Apple" (this example comes directly from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).

I agree that there's currently an elevated search interest in the Elasticsearch fork, but there's a disagreement as to the long-term significance of the fork, and whether there's merit to WP:USURPTITLE and break links (WP:LR). The notability of OpenSearch (the standard) does not WP:DEGRADE simply because it's no longer Google trending. Wrong Useful (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that OpenSearch (software) meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, and should instead be a section of the Elasticsearch article. A Google books search for OpenSearch only shows results for OpenSearch (the standard), suggesting that the Elasticsearch fork hasn't been written about, while the standard has. A Google news search for OpenSearch only returns a few articles, mostly from the time the Elasticsearch fork was released, suggesting only a burst of news coverage that has not been WP:SUSTAINED. A Google Scholar search, again, mostly returns results for the standard.

I think OpenSearch (software) should be moved to a section of the Elasticsearch article, similar to how Neovim is currently covered. Neovim on GitHub has 53k stars—10x as many as OpenSearch (software)—and is covered more in Google News and Books. But Neovim is a section of Vim because it's necessary to understand vim provides the broader context for understanding Neovim. Similarly, splitting OpenSearch from the Elasticsearch article makes it harder to understand the context of both.

In an effort to reach consensus, I think Crouch, Swale's suggestion of a disambiguation page could be suitable, but I haven't seen an argument addressing my concerns of breaking links (see WP:LINKROT and WP:UPT). Wrong Useful (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about Google Books. Although whether OpenSearch (software) is mentioned in Google books is not particularly useful in determining the Primary Topic for "Open Search", as it happens, the software is mentioned in multiple books in Google Books: Cloud Security for Dummies, Simplify Big Data Analytics with Amazon EMR, AWS Cookbook, Solutions Architect's Handbook, Linux Administration Best Practices even though it's only been out for about a year.

Similarly, Google News is not particularly relevant to determining the Primary Topic, but in the past month, if I'm counting right, OpenSearch (the software) has been mentioned 12 times and OpenSearch (the syndication protocol) only once. --Macrakis (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Keep OpenSearch(software) and OpenSearch search engine adding technique as is. Greatder (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC about reorganizing article titles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing under WP:RFCNOT, which notes that RfC is not a process invoked for moving or renaming pages. While it might be possible to discuss whether a topic is primary in an RfC, this is usually done through the requested moves process already started above, and initiating multiple, competing processes at the same time should be avoided. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Primary Topic for "OpenSearch"? --Macrakis (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like input from more experienced editors. Two of the four commentators in the Requested Move have little editing experience and, from my perspective, are misinterpreting our Primary Topic and article title policies. --Macrakis (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Need to have a warning about not being confused with the tools for syndication and aggregation of search results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSearch

Amazon made it so it can be especially confusing. Tuxayo (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]