Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

disambiguation discussion

Would it not be more appropriate for this page to be about the ideology and to have a bit at the top saying "for the linux distribution..." rather than the current disambiguation page? --Jason ^(talk) 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term has been through this loop before: see Talk:Ubuntu (ideology) for such gems as "Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu [Linux] here which is 100x more famous than the word." And I see some Linux-cruft has got onto this page again. For you (and me) the default is the philosophy, which is obviously more important anyway; for others, it's Linux, which is obviously more important anyway... Disambiguation is the Way of Peace :-) JackyR 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. In fact, this page is a waste of time. The ideology is obscure (in en, at least, which we are), and the distribution is popular. A look at the history for each page gives a quick hint which one more Wikipedia users care about; the distribution has over 600 edits, and the ideology has under 100. --130.39.152.206 00:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's likely because many Wikipedians are Linux geeks, which would not be surprising given Wikipedia's affinity with free software & open source. I don't think there's a good case for primary disambiguation either way; equal disambiguation, as at present, is therefore appropriate. — Matt Crypto 01:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The ideology is by no means obscure to English language users - at least 40 million use the term (quick estimate from pops of a few Anglophone southern African countries). And oddly, these are precisely the countries with low internet access, while Linux geekdom is defined by high access. So the edits are not surprising. If Ignorant Anon wants to see a refelction of him/herself, I suggest s/he look in a mirror. If s/he wants to learn something – well, they could look it up in an encyclopedia. I hear Wikipedia's not bad. JackyR 14:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — mark ✎ 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the previously anonymous user (130.39.152.206). "Humanity towards others," eh? For the third time in 24 hours, I am left mentioning that ad hominem attacks are not appropriate to other Wikipedians.

For the record, I am not ignorant; I am quite well educated, certainly beyond average. I know, for example, that neither "him/herself" nor "s/he" is a word in the English language, which uses the masculine where common would be used in languages with that gender available.

I am not interested in seeing a reflection of myself; I am interested in getting what I am looking for when I type something that's not ambiguous. Disambiguation pages between exactly two things are a waste of time. I'd even be happier if the philosophy got the main page because an italicized line under the title is just as easy to click.

Ubuntu the philosophy is just obscure to the overwhelming majority of users here. Our audience is not people without internet connections for at least one obvious reason. --CalculatinAvatar 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than 3 hours ago I was watching Interface (this time hosted by that foxy ice maiden Lerato Mbele) and they were talking about the TRC and goode olde de Klerk used the term "Ubuntu" - I doubt that he's a big fan of Linux... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me see... Since the name of the distribution comes from the philosophy then the philosophy is not so unimportant after all (otherwise the distribution would have another name). What exactly is your problem with the disambiguation? The fact that only a very small percentage of the World's population has internet access is not a good enough reason to exclude the knowledge of everybody else. Everyone thinks that being neurotic means "a little obsessed" but I doubt that's the main explanation at the neurosis article. What Wikipedia claims to be the truth should not be based on popularity. If we were to pretend that the philosophy does not exist then we would be lying (and how would we explain the peculiar name of the distribution?). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I might add that our intended audience is far broader than the internet-savy linux-fans. Consider als the fact that people are thinking about distributing Wikipedia offline and in less developed countries, and suddenly the urgency of Ubuntu Linux is somewhat less. We should strive to be as universally accessible as possible, instead of tailoring our content to the needs of the relatively small community of Linux-people, overrepresented on the internet as they may be. — mark ✎ 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. Proponents of the Ubuntu Linux article note that users here 'care more for that article'. Obviously, if you look at the number of edits the respective articles got (though that's not a trustworthy metric). But it also should be obvious that we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves! — mark ✎ 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Avatar, I don't know how to reply without making you feel more got at and distracting from the important issue. Which is still that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the definition refers to human knowledge, not knowledge of English-speakers with internet connections. It's a difference between an encyclopedia and a cosy fan-site or chat-room. If you have doubts, read Jimbo's m:Personal Appeal: I’m doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him. WP raised money through this statement: when I see it spent on this, a subject which is apparently not "obscure to the overwhelming majority of users here", I feel we're committing fraud.

Here's another thing you perhaps don't know about: m:Conference reports/FLOSS, South Africa 2005/Workshop 1#Potential projects. (Zyx, you'll love this!)

But not knowing is not what I meant by ignorant: it's the attitude of "I've never heard of it, so it can't matter," rather than, "Wow, I never knew that: I've learned something today." You're right that describing your edits as "ignorant" borders on WP:CIVIL - but it's in exactly the same tone as your own comment: reflect on how that made a number of contributors to this page feel!

And I know it's an unwise distraction, but the professional writer in me can't let you go without reference to this, which agrees with my OED. By all means ignore this last if you're feeling got at! JackyR 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the apparent consensus against me, though I continue to disagree.

I would note two things. The idea of a disambiguation page in the free textbook was quite amusing. Regarding "ignorant" being in the same tone, my post was directed at the page, not any person. --CalculatinAvatar 21:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the English language edition of Wikipedia (which is an online encyclopedia) is very much for English-speakers with Internet connections. Please see also Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, see "I've never heard of it". JackyR | Talk 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy you cited was from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I am not at all advocating the deletion of Ubuntu (ideology) — I would object to that idea, in fact. I simply believe that the current content of Ubuntu (Linux distribution) should be moved to Ubuntu. The current content of Ubuntu, then, should be moved to Ubuntu (disambiguation). And, of course, there would be a notice on the top of the article, stating something similar to:

This article is about the Linux distribution. For the ideology, see Ubuntu (ideology). For other uses, see Ubuntu (disambiguation).

— H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an entire disambiguation page for just one article is a bit excessive. The notice should state:

This article is about the Linux distribution. For the ideology, see Ubuntu (ideology). For the education fund, see Ubuntu Education Fund.

— H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could have the content of Ubuntu (ideology) at Ubuntu, as was originally the case. How would you feel about that?

As you can now see, different users prioritise different meanings, each group strongly believing its own priority is the "correct" one. The disambiguation page avoids prioritising one meaning over the other (although god help us the two-year-olds are now fighting over order on the page... For heaven's sake...).

This is the third time at least the page has been throught this discussion, so excuse my concentrated No Enthusiasm.JackyR | Talk 23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in May 2003, which is when that edit was from, this would've made sense as Ubuntu was not even released yet. Now, however, the relative amount of obscurity between both topics seems to have changed. [1][2] — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with H.7004.vx, especially now that Ubuntu has grown into a major Linux distribution. I've posted at WP:DAB for additional comments. Mahanga^Talk 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

and just when it settles down, Bill Clinton uses it in a speech...

(Bill Clinton comment left by some anonymous user.)

Ultimately this silly disambiguation page is the price we must pay due to Canonical choosing an existing word to name their distribution.

I have to wonder though where the line is drawn. If the philosophy article only got 10 pageviews per day while the Linux article got 100,000 would it still make sense not to default to the Linux article? Would it still make sense for the philosophy article to get top billing on the disambiguation page? BobbyPeru 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Canonical's decision to overload the term "Ubuntu", perhaps it's unfortunate, but it's hardly unique. A large number of trademarks are made by taking an existing term and applying it to a fanciful context. And it might not be all that unfortunate either. I wouldn't be surprised if knowledge about the Ubuntu distribution creates some interest in the Ubuntu ideology. I know I had never heard of it previously. From that POV, I kind of like having the two-term disambiguation page. Finding what you really want is still straightforward and awareness of the other usage is subtlely increased. --AlphaEtaPi 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would still make sense to me. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu should stay as a dab, because:

1. Moving articles around or redirecting this page would require backlink fixing, which is seldom done; and no backlink fixing would consume server recources, which are currently scarce
2. This arrangement is neutral between pro-Linux and pro-ideology partisans, who cannot come to a consensus on which article is more important/popular/whatever
3. I can't think of any benefit that coulf be objectively measured if things were moved around
4. Frankly, my dear all, this is not that important an issue and people looking for one of the Ubuntu articles will not waste a terrible amount amount of time because of an extra jump.

My opinion, of course.--maf (talk-cont) 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Wikipedia:Disambiguation. CarolGray 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad rule of thumb. One problem here is that Ubuntu-the-ideology is going to be underrepresented on the Internet, and Ubuntu-the-Linux-distro overrepresented. Quite how much is hard to say, but we have to be very careful of systemic bias; that is, we shouldn't prioritise geek topics just because we're an Internet project. (And sheesh, people! Let's not edit war over the order of the entries on the page...) — Matt Crypto 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Mahanga

User:Mahanga has reverted my neutral alpha sort and put the Linux article back on top, stating on the edit summary: "it's not an agenda, order of usage is a guideline". Well, I don't care nor do I know about any ubuntu, be it an operating system or an ideology; I came here to do some needed dab-cleanup, so I'll say this about this user:

1. He has a conflict of interest as he declared on his personal pages his likes for the operating system; he was wrong to find a reason (albeit not proven) to accomodate his interest
2. He is an administrator, so he obviously is right in what he did.

Some ideology partisan will come next and get their own convenient excuse to revert the order once again, until some admin reverts it again. It's the circle of WP life. My job is done here. --maf (talk-cont) 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

derivatives of Ubuntu?

Why does this page have derivatives of Ubuntu listed on it? shouldn't they be on the Ubuntu Linux page? if no-one can give a good reason, I will move them to the Ubuntu (Linux) page, or whatever it's called Inzy 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is quite confusing, and inappropriate. Move it!! Bump it around like a toothless crackwhore!! Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A template on Ubuntu Christian Edition points to this page, to discuss the include/merge that article (Ubuntu Christian Edition) with this disambiguation page. (Obviously somebody wasn't paying attention to what they were linking to.)jonathon 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Although less important, Linux is more popular.

come on, more people want to know about the distro than the ideology/foundation. let this page redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Peteturtle 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ubuntu page should point to the disambiguation page. As a philosophy, it is far more important than any computer operating system will ever be. (As far as I know, nobody has been killed for using an operating system. People were killed trying to convince governments to adhere to the philosophy that Ubuntu is. Maptela Mohapi in pace requiescat.)jonathon 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never new people were killed for believing in Ubuntu. It really is more important than the distro, but you have to see that if you google "Ubuntu," almost all of the first 10 pages of results will be solely about the OS. It's more popular, so shouldn't Wikipedia follow that? I'm not trying to start an edit war. I'm just trying to help Wikipedia. Peteturtle 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peteturtle. The statistics and style guide back up the notion that Ubuntu should redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution), with disambiguation from there... it's simply the much more popular destination for those browsing wikipedia and the web and general. WP:DAB states:

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic."

This is definitely the case for Ubuntu. Many more people are searching for the Linux distribution. Look at the top 1000 most viewed pages for the current month. Ubuntu (Linux distribution) is about halfway down... none of the other meanings are listed. Choosing to point the disambiguation page to the most commonly-search meaning is not a judgment about morality or social importance or relevance. It's simply a matter of convenience for users. MOXFYRE (contrib) 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Web statistics are a very flawed measure for judging "primary usage" for this sort of thing, simply because, by restricting ourselves to people connected to the Internet, we are enormously skewing our data. (There are not so many Africans on the Internet, but most Linux users are.) Try Googling "Java", for example. We need to remember that Wikipedia is not just for the people who are well connected to the Internet in 2007. — Matt Crypto 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... what?? Actually, Wikipedia *is* just for the people who are well connected to the Internet right now... since that's the only way to access it! This is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, and if the user base changes in the future, wikipedia can/will adapt rapidly. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It makes no sense to arrange redirect/disambiguation pages for users that aren't present in great numbers yet... regardless of whether that situation is just or desirable.

If more Africans get Internet access (which would be a wonderful development!) and more users want to read to about Ubuntu (philosophy) than Ubuntu (Linux distribution), then the redirect/disambiguation can change. There is no reason for the redirect to be set in stone, as this is simply a matter of practicality rather than principle. MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, part of this is an "eventualist vs immediatist" discussion. Wikipedia stated goal is to "create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". I think we should write it as such, even if at this moment in time most people who access Wikipedia live in developed countries and read it over the Web. Ubuntu Linux is simply not the primary meaning in a global sense, and we are intended to be a global project. Further, it's not a good message to send to people when a computer operating system — popular only with a relatively small number of geeks and created less than 3 years ago — is given precedence over a philosophy known to millions of people who are no less important than other people just because they happen to live in Africa. — Matt Crypto 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with that goal! However, I believe that redirecting from ambiguous terms to primary definition is not a matter of principle or encyclopedic quality or universality, but mainly an issue of convenience. The simple fact is that most people who look up Ubuntu in Wikipedia want the Linux distribution. Those who want one of the other uses will be immediately presented with an {{otheruses}} heading, and will find what they want. This is not a slight to the other articles, simply a means to save a few thousand clicks per day :-) MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] I've put Ubuntu back to the DAB+discuss form, because Peteturtle's redirect had a serious problem: by failing to add a dab-line to Ubuntu (Linux), he made Ubuntu (philos) completely unfindable.

So far I don't see any consensus in this discussion (the same people posting several times does not constitute weight of opinion) and given all previous discussions on precisely this topic, I don't feel those objections have been overcome. In particular, one of Wikipedia 1.0's specific goals is to make Wikipedia available off-line to people in countries with poor internet access - this is in progress now, not the distant future.

Those who are in favour of a redirect to Linux, I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for input on this page. These folk will be non-partisan - tho last time their considered opinion was to leave the dab. JackyR | Talk 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The mango came first, then the Mango fly, now we have Fly Mango the slogan of SAA who would like their slogan to be more popular while it is less important. Have you ever been stung by a Mango fly or eaten a Mango for that matter? If you had done any of the above you would probably remember. For someone looking for Fly Mango, well Wikipedia is not quite there yet..Gregorydavid 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some research... Wikipedia's top 1000 most viewed pages has Transformers (film) at no 6, Bleach (manga) at 15, Heroes (TV series) at 19, Graduation (album) at 29. These are way above Ubuntu (Linux) at "halfway down" (MoxFyre[3]), yet the default entries are all the original word or a DAB. Even Java leads to the island not the programming language.

This seems to undermine all the above arguments for Linux to be the default Ubuntu entry. But I shall research further, just in case. JackyR | Talk 13:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wagon Wheel and [[[Wagonwheel]] and ask yourself what happened to those wagon wheels which came first and seem to have been erased from the record on wikipedia.Gregorydavid 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean Wagonwheel --froth^t 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

JackyR, your examples "undermin[ing] the above arguments for Linux to be the default Ubuntu entry" are flawed. You are claiming that Bleach (manga) has more visits than Bleach because the former is a more prominently known among WP users? I don't think so. Virtually 100% of people interested on Bleach (manga), Heroes (TV series) or Graduation (album) not only are familiar with the original meaning of bleach, hero, or graduation, but even give them for granted as everyday members of the basic language they use. If they ever hear or read the words with little or no context they will naturally assume the original sense. Heroes (TV series) has more visits than Hero because few people need to search WP to find out what a hero is, whereas they might be interested in widening their knowledge about a TV series they are fans of (the same goes for the other words). OTOH, Ubuntu (as OS) has more visits than Ubuntu (as philosophy) not because Ubuntu (p) is so entrenched in the WP users' minds that they hardly need to read about it, but because most of them are oblivious to it. I'd guess most WP users that know about Ubuntu (p) do so because of Ubuntu (OS), and almost never the other way around. Who do you think are more abundant, people who know bleach as a chemical product (cleaner, etc), or people who know know that Bleach is the name of some manga? And for Ubuntu (p) and Ubuntu (OS)? It is true that WP article visit count alone is not a good indicator, but it can be if you couple it with common sense. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 08:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a big fan of Ubuntu Linux, and I think we should be human by treating others as human, and keep Ubuntu as a disambiguation page. -- Logotu 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm inclined to agree with the practically-classic "Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu [Linux] here which is 100x more famous than the word". Actually I whole-heartedly agree with it. DISCUSS! The discussion has seemed to stall, lets get more people on the linux distro bandwagon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless edit war

What is the purpose of changing the order of the times listed in the disambiguation page? Especially when the Wikipedia default is to order items alphabetically. jonathon 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have fairly strong feelings on whether or not this page should be a redirect... but as long as it's a disambiguation page, I don't see any point in squabbling over the order. Alphabetical makes sense on dab pages with only a few entries. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Standardized Disamabig Page

I have fixed the disambiguation page to match standard wikipedia style. It is better this way, please don't revert without first posting here.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu&oldid=168816058 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.175.97 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists - this list is not long enough to justify categorized disambiguation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The place, computing, generic breakdown is easier to read. For those looking for a specific thing, such as the town, the undifferentiated list is harder to parse than the categorized list. Furthermore, given the recent pointless edit war, such categorization might serve to prevent/minimize future pointless edit wars. jonathon 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with categorization is that it would place Ubuntu (Linux distribution) below significantly less popular links such as Ubuntu Education Fund and Ubuntu Award. The Ubuntu Award article, incidentally, does not even exist. The idea here is to help users navigate quickly to the most important topics, not make them look through lists of items they don't care about so much before finding what they are after. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• A categorized list is faster for me to scan through. When I look at it, my eyes immediately jump to the bolded category labels and I find my article instantly. With a big list, I have to look through it manually. While you may be right that my list was technically longer; it is faster to use and that is what's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DCC Alliance

The DCC Alliance article is up for deletion. Those interested may wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DCC_Alliance and/or help improve (correct...) the piece as a historical record of past diversions. —Sladen 07:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Yo

YO man, I heard about this linux distro(butuion) and so I searched it on wikipedi. But if there is an improtant philosophy than that should go first. The distro existed for a few years, but the philosophy started years back man. And it Is WAAAY more p=improtant. THis unsigned comment was left by..... just kidding --Sdakjg (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We want to provide the best service to wikipedia users. That means helping them find the content they are interested in. That means the linux definition. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they happen to be looking for Ubuntu the philosophy. — Matt Crypto 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what percentage looking for philosphy versus distribution? If you don't, perhaps first 100 google results will give us a clue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear policy on the matter at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The very existence of these discussions over and over again indicates that we should avoid redirecting. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a comment on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. ffm 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come by to offer a comment after a request was put in for unbiased input at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. The primary topic section of the disambiguation guidelines state pretty much exactly what I was already going to say (and what appears to have been said above): "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." This seems to be a pretty clear case of just that. Since both the philosophy and operating system articles seem very notable, it seems appropriate to leave Ubuntu as a disambiguation page, not a redirect to any particular article. (In this case, the actual technical side of things, the disambiguation page should actually be located at Ubuntu, and Ubuntu (disambiguation) should redirect to it.) -- Natalya 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I left my response here: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Request_to_change_disambiguation_guideline .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting move

This page does not need to have a disambiguation suffix, as the Ubuntu page is simply a redirect here. I'm not sure whether more people look for the philosophy or computer kernel, so I will just leave it like this. PwnerELITE (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. If there's no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be located at Ubuntu, not Ubuntu (disambiguation). Until the primary topic discrepancy gets worked out, I was just leaving it as is, but you are right that if it were to stay this way, it should be moved (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions). -- Natalya 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct placement of disambiguation page

If things were to stay as they were, the disambiguation page should technically be at Ubuntu, not Ubuntu (disambiguation). Because of the ongoing discussion, I'm holding off on changing this until a decision is reached. Just fyi! -- Natalya 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting primary topic

The following discussion is a concluded proposition. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: (6 /3/ 0) to make Ubuntu (operating system) the primary page for Ubuntu, and make the latter page a disambiguation page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Month of March there were 134940 page visits to ubuntu the linux distrubution. In that same time frame there were 9398 page visits to Ubuntu philosophy. My recommendation is that ubuntu point to the linux distro, since that is what 10x+ the people are interested in. On the top of the Linux distro there is a disambiguation pointer to the African philosophy. This will allow the majority of wikipedia users to find at first search the article they are interested in. Those interested in the philosophy have one extra click to find the article they are interested in. Not much different then finding the disambiguation page and then clicking on that article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The visit link stats take into account all internal links, including links that would result from clicks on the Ubuntu disambiguation page, and ones that would come from other articles. There are about 250 pages that link to Ubuntu (operating system), and about 60 pages that link to Ubuntu (philosophy), while none link to Ubuntu (disambiguation) or Ubuntu.I would be interested in seeing how many people get to Ubuntu (operating system) and Ubuntu (philosophy) via internal wiki links vs the disambiguation page. Andareed (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Disambiguation pages are about helping people find the correct topic when they type something ambiguous into the search bar. Currently, 100% of users are forced to read the dab page in order to find the desired article; this means an average of 1.0 clicks per user. It seems to me that the vast majority of users looking for Ubuntu want the linux distribution; google hits and visit stats. If we assume a conservative 90%/10% split, people wanting Ubuntu (operating system) will need to make 0 clicks, and people wanting the philosophy (or something else) will need to make 2 clicks (one click to get to the dab page, and one click to get to the topic they want). This means that on average, users will be clicking $0.9\times 0+0.1\times 2=0.2$ clicks. This is a much better than an average of 1.0 clicks. Andareed (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Support It would most definitely save time and reduce clicks (COI disclosure: I run Ubuntu, and have friends who are Ubuntu Members). ffm 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There is a clear wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages and redirects (WP:PRIMARYUSAGE). Reducing clicks or looking at the final intended destination of users is not in the policy. The fact that this has been debated and the subject of so many revert wars is evidence, in itself, that the DAB page should remain. On a personal note, I use Ubuntu as my secondary operating system. However, I don't believe that we should allow wikipedia's current massive pro-technical user bias to dictate the content of pages. If people opened a paper encyclopedia to "Ubuntu" and got the description of an operating system, they would be very surprised. I concur that most people searching wikipedia for "Ubuntu" might have the operating system in mind, but I don't believe this correlates to the fact that the primary usage of the term outside of wikipedia is referring to operating system. --HiltonLange (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that as disambiguators, we have to work the line pretty hard between reducing the number of clicks for a person to reach a particular article and not biasing the encyclopedia towards technology, or any other topic. I would neither want to make an article the primary topic solely because it got more hits than another article any more than I would want to make an article the primary topic solely because it felt more encyclopedic. Though I may tend towards the "making the encyclopedia more encyclopedic" attitude, I feel like we need to consider multiple factors when deciding. I don't have a vote on this issue, but I wanted to put some personal disambiguation philosophy out there. I think both sides of the discussion have very compelling arguments. -- Natalya 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu the philosophy is relative obscure term for the english language wikipedians. It only gets as many hits as it does because of the popularity of the linux distro. The 13x difference in page views is evidence of this.

There is a clear wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages and redirects (WP:PRIMARYUSAGE). When there is a well known primary meaning... 13x is indicative of a well known primary meaning. The policy states that

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign...

Note, it doesn't say: is a sign, just may be a sign. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a well-known primary meaning and a meaning that's popular on the Internet. — Matt Crypto 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that among technically inclined people (and probably among those who use wikipedia in general), the operating system is much more well-known than the philosophy. However, it is less clear (at least to me) whether "real-world" people would readily know about either, and which they would primarily identify Ubuntu with. As such, we should fallback to going with what users of wikipedia want. On the other hand, in the case of Bleach (chemical) vs Bleach (manga), it seems clear that your average person will recognize the former much more readily than the latter, even though the average wikipedian may identify with the latter before the former. In this case then, it makes sense for Bleach to be about the chemical. Andareed (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalya, I don't see primary-topic redirection as a matter of bias or judgment of a topic's importance. I see it as just a matter of convenience. We always include disambiguation or other-topic links. Redirection isn't set in stone, it's just a practical matter I think. If Ubuntu the Linux distribution is sought vastly more often, then we should redirect to it. If people start searching for the philosophy more, then we should change the redirect to that instead. Wiki is not paper :-) ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that. The article operating system is viewed overwhelmingly more than the philosophy article, and even though both articles are important, when it's that huge of a discrepancy, I would not be uncomfortable with the operating system being the main article. I think it is important to be aware of the fact that Wikipedia can easily slide into a technological bias, however, and make sure that when such an issue comes up, we really look at it. I am in no way saying that there hasn't been valid analysis there; it's just important to be aware of it always. It's quite possible that I'm preching to the choir, but it's an important enough issue that I wanted to mention it. Systemic bias can even come into disambiguating! -- Natalya 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I agree completely. I think in large part the systemic bias appears in the quality and quantity of articles on various topics... witness how many articles Wikipedia has on The Simpsons compared to, say, the Culture of Nigeria. I guess nerds from the western world are over-represented here :-)

I don't perceive too much bias in redirects/disambiguation, thankfully. For example, Apache points to the Native American tribe, rather than the web server, which makes sense given the relative traffic.

In this case, there's such a discrepancy in traffic that it makes sense to redirect to the distro. I see redirects as a practical feature, like indices or tables in a paper encyclopedia, not as really content themselves. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Moxfyre. I am glad to understand your viewpoint. -- Natalya 02:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, see previous comments on talk page. — Matt Crypto 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I agree completely with Andareed. As I said above: Choosing to point the disambiguation page to the most commonly-sought meaning is not a judgment about morality, social importance, or relevance. It's simply a matter of convenience. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support The paper encyclopedia analogy is not directly applicable, but if it were then the users would be happy (perhaps pleasantly surprised but not negatively surprised) that the encyclopedia has the article they want, and for the relatively few that are looking for something else, they are happy with a magic button press that shows their article of interest. (note: I made the recommendation so don't count this twice.) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, make Ubuntu a disambiguation page that points to this article and the distro article. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, the reasons are given in the other support votes ... 62.116.68.237 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion has concluded. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus reached to redirect to the disambiguation page, now moved to "Ubuntu", as there is no primary topic.

---

Continuation of the primary topic discussion

I have a couple concerns with the primary topic decision. Firstly, was the above discussion that sort of turned into a poll meant to be a decisive poll? There was no mention of that that I can remember, and aren't we supposed to decide things, in most cases, by consensus? There still seems to be disagreement on this topic, and some concerns have been expressed to me about the decision that was made. My goal in all of this is just to make sure that whatever is decided about the primary topic, the disambigution page is set properly. I'd be happy to help mediate if there are editors who would like to continue the primary topic discussion. -- Natalya 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a rough consensus, afaict. ffm 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of disambiguation was raised very many times. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. It was also taken to the Disambiguation talk page twice ([10] and [11]), and not once was Consensus or even rough consensus reached, IMHO. I feel that the topic has basically been dealt with by forum shopping, specifically mentioned as something to avoid when seeking real consensus. The results of the discussion were (4:3:0), or at best, (5:3:0), if you count the Support of the original poster, which he asked not to be counted. The fact that this was taken to the Talk:Disambiguation page, and the move was not supported, says to me that people were going to repeatedly reraise this topic until "their" page was promoted to the primary topic, rather than actually seeking guidance from others. --HiltonLange (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one missed the discussion, but I think moving the Linux Distribution to Ubuntu was the right outcome. *shrug* --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal perspective: I am a part-time Ubuntu Linux user, as well as a South African. The word "Ubuntu" is commonplace here, and refers to the spirit of humanity towards others. It has been used in speeches by Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, with the latter two finding no need to clarify its meaning, accepting it as common knowledge. There are over 100 million people in Southern Africa who will identify "Ubuntu" with that original meaning. However, internet access amongst these people is pitifully scarce. No, they will not come onto wikipedia in their droves, searching for Ubuntu, the philosophy. But my point is, those people exist, and they probably outnumber those who will associate "Ubuntu" with Linux. The primary and original meaning of the word still exists in the real world, whether or not those people are regularly searching wikipedia. Considering that the Linux distribution was named after this concept of humanity, especially as a way of embodying the spirit of it, it seems to be especially ironic that users of the distribution seem to casually disregard that the original meaning is being lost. Additionally, one of the top criticisms of Wikipedia is systemic bias in coverage, and basing a primary topic decision about the number of wikipedia searches only entrenches that bias and further marginalises Wikipedia. This isn't a decision I will fight for, or make edits, but it's a sad one IMHO. --HiltonLange (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I asked that my vote not be counted twice. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As a disambiguation point, just to be sure that everyone is clear (I think most people are, but just in case), there are many cases with disambiguation pages where there are multiple topics that are well-known - in these cases, there is no primary topic, and all articles are listed the same on the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's undeniable that Ubuntu Linux is the most popular search target for the word "Ubuntu" on the Web, but it is by no means the primary meaning in the world at large. It's something of a trade-off. By elevating Ubuntu Linux to Ubuntu, we've helped people get to what they're looking for faster on average. The downside is that we've increased our systemic bias. The same tradeoff would lead to moving, for example, Java programming language to Java. I think it's a short-sighted strategy, personally. — Matt Crypto 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ubuntu Linux editors have moved on. We're not going to get any significant input from them, this page is no longer showing when they search for Ubuntu, so they'll be silent while the current status quo holds. Unless someone with some more Wikipedia experience than myself takes this to Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation for an objective decision, I'll let it lie. For the record, I feel that the Ubuntu topic has been hijacked, and the search for input was blatant forum shopping. It shouldn't have been taken to the talk page unless outside input was actually sought. --HiltonLange (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to have a final decision on the issue, one way or another. I'll bring it up at Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation, to hopefully get some more input. -- Natalya 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already a section from April. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted something of a reminder, just to make people aware that there is still some discussion going on. -- Natalya 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does your definition of wp:forum shopping mean escalating to one forum or was there more than that? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I've posted above the 7 times that it was raised, and (imho), none of those came close to reaching consensus for the change. The biggest single problem I had was that it was raised at the (hopefully) objective Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation, and when those editors failed to support the primary topic proposal, it was re-raised here, disregarding that decision. It was then pushed through on a "consensus", which simply didn't exist. --HiltonLange (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been ignoring this latest "debate" over Ubuntu until I noticed something disturbing. Since when was the operating system named just "Ubuntu" without the "Linux" qualifier?

Ubunt has nothing to do with computing. If you insist on promoting systemic bias couldn't you have at least made "Ubuntu" a redirect? However, the previous situation, where "Ubuntu" redirected to the disambiguation was optimal.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be a redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution), Ubuntu (Computing), or Ubuntu (GNU). I don't agree we should inconvenience 15x users with a disambiguation page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• From a reader's perspective, I'd prefer that the disambiguation page was the root/primary link, for two reasons:

1. The page loads way faster on my broadband connection: 2 seconds for the disambig page, 12 seconds for the Ubuntu linux page.
2. A short disambiguation page like this can be very educational.

• From an editor's perspective, I'd suggest that the dab page list be split into 3 sections, to avoid any "primary topic" ordering dispute. Example.

(Disclaimers: I haven't read the prior discussion yet (so I'm coming to this thread slightly fresh/innocent). I do quite a bit of dab-page cleanup (and came here from the pointer at WT:DAB). I've been using just Ubuntu linux for about 16 months.) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not Wikipedia should reflect the biases and prejudices of the First World Colonial Empires, or that of Humanity at large.(This applies not only to this dab, but all Wikipedia content and articles.) jonathon (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>That sounds great! If it's not emotionally laden, then everything is simple!</sarcasm>

It doesn't have much to do with my suggestions though... (which, you might notice, opine that the disambig page should be the primary topic, not ubuntu linux). Are you trying to ViolentlyAgree with me? :-) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I agree with Quiddity. At the very least, the Linux distribution should be at Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Ideally, this page should be a DAB and not a redirect. But me thinking that isn't exactly news. --HiltonLange (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus to rename the Ubuntu page to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Administrator: please make the move. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation) about where to move a page other than Ubuntu (disambiguation) is not particularly compelling. I think any further moves should follow WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep things in perspective: The Ubuntu page was renamed because of what was discussed on the previous disambiguation page. The consensus here is to rename it back to what it was. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change my perspective. The consensus here may not match the consensus of the editors currently watching Ubuntu, which is why WP:RM should be followed before changing the article or dab page at Ubuntu. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect target

Looking at Ubuntu (disambiguation), it appears that the philosophy is the primary meaning. Based on that, this redirect should point either there or to the disambiguation page. While I agree that the OS is a frequent search topic, I disagree that it should be the redirect's target. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I completly agree with that. --SF007 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The philosophy page is the main one and should be redirected there. ALl the rest of the articles have are based on the philosophy (ie. the school, the town, the OS, etc.) If need be, then add a template to the philosophy page to guide users to the operating system page. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Exaclty. Linking to the disambig in the first place was also not a bad ideia. --SF007 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we modify the hatnote on the philosophy page to mention the OS specificly, then other uses. I will do so and see what others think. Feel free to refine it. Yworo (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I tried to do, but I couldn't figure it out. Those types of templates always confuse me. But yes, I think that this is better. Let's see what others think. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT. We cannot redirect to the disambiguous page either. See WP:FURTHERDAB PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. If you need assistance in the future with the hatnote templates, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the hatnote at Ubuntu (philosophy). The code is {{Redirect6|Ubuntu|the operating system|Ubuntu (operating system)||}}, which produces the text "'Ubuntu' redirects here. For the operating system, see Ubuntu (operating system). For other uses, see Ubuntu (disambiguation)." —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --SF007 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This redirect was done against consensus: See Talk:Ubuntu_(operating_system)#Okay.2C_I_want_to_make_this_clear_.28about_conflicting_names_with_philosophy.29. To reiterate: 90% of the visitors typing "Ubuntu" are looking for the operating system page, not the philosophy page. To say that the philosophy is the primary meaning is not helpful, as well as culturally biased: Ubuntu (the operating system) is a global term while Ubuntu (the philosophy) is specific to southern Africa. Scott Ritchie (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this redirect looks like it reflects the majority opinion from that poll (but I don't think there's a clear consensus from that poll). I also don't think it got a representative sample by taking place at the operating system's talk page. If you want to repoll here - with notice to the philosophy and operating system talk pages - that's fine. However, I don't think that poll shows consensus to redirect to the operating system. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:FURTHERDAB only restricts linking to the disambiguation page. There's nothing wrong with redirecting to it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Ubuntu, it's pretty obvious that the operating system is the intended target of this link in the majority of cases.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a compelling reason to point this redirect to the operating system: it is easier to do that than fix the links. (Forgive me saying it, but Sarek, your logic is compelling. :) ) —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bot that can take care of that. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider leaving it pointing at the dab page, if that's what consensus says after further discussion. However, when the philosophy is clearly not the primary target of the link, I don't think we should be pointing there. For the time being, I've added the link to Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the number of (fixable) links should be a criteria. The correct criteria is most common usage. I'd like to point out that that's not necessarily equivalent to "most common usage by techonophiles with access to computers and the internet". Number of links or page hits cannot help us here. Yworo (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, especially if you go off repointing all those links immediately after commenting that "number of links" can't help.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is standard proceedure to pipe links that go to the wrong page or to a disambiguation page. The number of links that need to be fixed shouldn't be a consideration at all. Several users are willing to correct them. Yworo (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk statistics? When Ubuntu (operating system) was actually Ubuntu, it received 142,304 hits in July 2009. In the same month, Ubuntu (philosophy) received 19,312 hits. Lastly, the Ubuntu (disambiguation) page was only hit 1,970 times. What makes the most sense for Ubuntu to redirect to? This is similar to how windows redirects to Microsoft Windows and not window... the statistics are parallel. Altonbr (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, that's inaccurate. Because it was at Ubuntu, every search ended up there, even if it wasn't what the searcher was looking for. Can we also talk about cultural appropriation and the fact that "most common usage" is not equivalent to "most common usage on the Internet by technophiles with easy access to computers and the Internet"? If somebody came up with an operating system called "Christianity" and it became, like John Lennon, more popular than Jesus, should we redirect Christianity to the OS? Yworo (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is more culturally relevant. Since your operating system called Christianity doesn't exist, I could call that just as inaccurate of an argument. If you'd like to make my statistics argument more accurate, just look back to a time when Ubuntu was neither Ubuntu (operating system) nor Ubuntu (philosopy) and look at the statistics. Continuing with statistics, Ubuntu (operating system) has 620 links to the article (excluding redirects), while Ubuntu (philosophy) has 133, which is almost five times the amount.Altonbr (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

These statistics are all relevant and matter, according to Wikipedia. Their answer to this dispute would be to have Ubuntu redirect to Ubuntu (operating system) while Ubuntu (operating system) be linked to [[Ubuntu (disambiguation), which is linked to both Ubuntu (operating system) and Ubuntu (philosophy).Altonbr (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just been correcting those links and I can tell you that they've been stuffed. Multiple links from single article, gratuitous mentions, and every piece of open source software, Ubuntu-specific or not, apparently has to have a screenshot of it running on Ubuntu along with a link to the article. About half of those links should be removed. Yworo (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and read that link you posted, "Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors" (emphasis in original). My argument is due the the nature of the term, the clear deriviation, etc. that the tools are much less important in this case than other considerations. Yworo (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputes

This has been bouncing between the OS and the Philosophy all afternoon; and if it stays on the philosophy, someone will in very short order point it back towards the OS (there are a lot of fans of the OS). Also remember that which meaning is the 'original' meaning is irrelevent; there is only a primary meaning if that meaning is "much more used" than any other meaning). I suggest that the disambiguation page is the only one with any chance of being up there semi-permanently; otherwise it will keep bouncing between OS and philosophy. -- simxp (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, the redirect could be protected. Your proposed solution is not the only one. On top of that, you are exaggerating. It bounced several times, then the involved editors discussed and came to a resolution. I don't see how changing it yourself without even bothering to check the talk page was supposed to improve a situation which had stabilized. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That "the involved editors discussed and came to a resolution" is trivially false; neither of the two editors who were reverting it to point to the OS have posted above at all (they have presumably gone to bed). As a matter of fact, every single editor in the discussion above is in favour of using the phiosophy as the primary topic. This consensus is as such only one between people on one side of the discussion, and will break down as soon as the OS proponents wake up and point out that the 'stabalized consensus' is no such thing. And asking an admin to protect the page before they do so would be, IMO, very much against the spirit of Wikipedia indeed. In any case, I am going to sleep now, and have no wish to start a revert war, so will leave the page alone. -- simxp (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's asking? I was simply pointing out that it was an alternative. I think PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow's move is an even better possible solution. Yworo (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Full-protection

Page "Ubuntu" is now fully-protected indefinitely Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ubuntu, by User:Malinaccier until this is resolved. PopMusicBuff ^talk 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-direct

This should re-direct to the linux os, why is it locked from changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because people were editwarring over where it should point. It was protected to make sure people actually discussed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, 99% of the people going to Ubuntu are looking for the OS so it should be that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that? Yworo (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

because i know, just google ubuntu and see what comes up.

That's not a valid method for determining usage. Yworo (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

If anyone want to talk statistics, let's talk about the number of speakers of Bantu languages versus number of users of the Ubuntu (operating system). Then we'd be getting closer to a valid argument. Yworo (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a more valid comparison would be the number of Bantu speakers accessing the English-language Wikipedia versus the number of Ubuntu users accessing the English-language Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because the term is now also used by English speakers. By the way, that's 220 million speakers of a Bantu language vs. 8 million Ubuntu users. That's 27 times more Bantu speakers than Ubuntu users. The redirect should clearly point at the philosophy. Yworo (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

how many of the speakers are going to en.wikipedia to look up a word of their language. the argument should be how many english speaking people use Ubuntu other that reffering to the OS. why doesnt windows redirect to window instead of MS windows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you just don't seem to be familiar with the massive usage of the term by English-speaking people as well. For example, Ubuntu was the theme of the recent 76th General Convention of the American Episcopal Church. That's 2 million English speakers right there. That's in addition to the 220 million Bantu language speakers, some of whom will also speak English and may well use English Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the word Ubuntu anywhere on the 76th General Convention page. Are you sure it was the primary theme, and not just mentioned in passing? --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at the logo in the middle of the page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See also http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_112735_ENG_HTM.htm. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

there is also a ubuntu christian edition for the OS so make sure you check off every christian in the world for the OS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacoboy42 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

These are all moot points, as Wikipedia has a definitive policy about this already, read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, according to these criteria the search term Ubuntu should clearly point to the operating system, as it was. Mahjongg (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. How precisely have you established that the OS is primary? Be specific. The section clearly says that the tools listed "may help" but are "not determining". So how did you determine this? Yworo (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

by the official way of following WP:PRIMARYTOPIC directives, any other way would be influenced by POV. Mahjongg (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly says that the statistical tools may help but are not determining factors. That is, it's not a fixed algorithm, it requires discussion and thought. And no amount of your pretending that it's an algorithm will make it so. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they are tools, and only that. however they are "tools to determine what a user expects to find when searching for a keyword", They may help.... to find out what the average users expectancy is....! And you utterly fail to convince that most users that search for Ubuntu expect to be directed to an article about the Ubuntu philosophy, they expect to find the Ubuntu Operating system. Discussion and thought on how to proof what the average user expects to find is fine, but the answer to that should still be the determining factor, not some POV of what is "most important". Important to WHO? For Wikipedia the answer is "important to the average visitor". Mahjongg (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, do not know and are unwilling to acknowledge the prevalence of the original use of the term. Internet tools simply don't work on this problem, because the plethora of sites, pages, forums, blogs of a software project simply drown out the other sites. The term ubuntu is generally not used together in the phrase "Ubuntu philosophy" - there is no way to easily find the number of pages on the topic on Google. It's a standalone word and the OS pages have drowned it out... because every forum post is a separate page, every package has a separate page, etc. The fact that the OS is frequently referred to also as just "Ubuntu" makes sorting things out via Google impossible. You've not even responded to the American Episcopal Church (over 2 million members) using the philosophy as the central theme of this year's General Convention. I'm done talking to you unless you acknowledge these things. You aren't discussing, you are declaring, and it's simply not up to you. Yworo (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well just for the record, I still maintain that the bulk of the people visiting this wikipedia will look for the operating system when they search for Ubuntu, (and I think statistics that monitor what people choose from the disambiguation page will show it) but I have peace with the current situation, (pointing to a neutral disambiguation page), because I hope it helps more people become aware of the philosophical term, and also why the OS is named this way. By the way, why isn't Ubuntu Cola sold in the Netherlands, but only in the UK, (it seems) I would like to at least try it sometimes. Mahjongg (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Where should the redirect point?

Until recently, Ubuntu (operating system) was at Ubuntu. It was moved without discussion, but properly, as far as I can tell. However, now there is a heated discussion going on about where the redirect from Ubuntu should point: Ubuntu (operating system), Ubuntu (philosophy), or Ubuntu (disambiguation). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As User:Altonbr already pointed out above: "When Ubuntu (operating system) was actually Ubuntu, it received 142,304 hits in July 2009. In the same month, Ubuntu (philosophy) received 19,312 hits. Lastly, the Ubuntu (disambiguation) page was only hit 1,970 times."

So let's close this WP:POINT now. --R.Schuster (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a bogus statistic because every search ended up there, plus we don't make these decisions on the basis of statistics alone. The relevant pages says that while there are statistical tools, they are not the determining factor. This is not intended to be WP:POINTy in any way. Wikipedia is supposed to take a world-wide non-culturally-biased view. The OS is only more commonly used among technophiles and on the Internet. That's exactly the kind of cultural bias we are supposed to be avoiding. Yworo (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point to disambiguation. The mere fact that this discussion is still going on, after a proposal was made at Talk:Ubuntu two months ago, tells me that there's enough of a split that there are two primary topics. Accordingly, point this to the disambiguation page, and recast the disambiguation page into traditional disambiguation format, without giving the philosophy the undue weight it has there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point to Ubuntu (philosophy) - there are 220 million speakers of a Bantu language vs. 8 million Ubuntu users. That's 27 times more Bantu speakers than Ubuntu users. The term was used as the main theme of the recent 76th General Convention of the American Episcopal Church. That's 2 million English speakers right there. That's in addition to the 220 million Bantu language speakers, some of whom will also speak English and may well use English Wikipedia. In many of the countries where Bantu languages are spoken, such as Zimbabwe, English is actually the majority language, so the likelyhood of English-speaking users searching for the term worldwide is high. The term has been used in public speaking by Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Bill Clinton. This is not an insignificant cultural term which was culturally appropriated by the OS, that would be a different story. This is a significant even central cultural term. Yworo (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - Additionally, the word Ubuntu is new to the lexicon of most English Speaking people, so a redirect to the root of the term is not only logical and sensible, but it gives breadth and depth not only to the operating system, but to the philosophy and people of southern Africa from whence the term comes. - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point to disambiguation (or to Ubuntu (philosophy)) - seems the better option, while the Ubuntu distro is probably more popular on the internet than the philosophy, the distro is inspired in the philosophy and pointing "Ubuntu" to the distro is giving "undue weight". --SF007 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Point to Ubuntu (operating system) the argument that the number of speakers of the launguage should not count as a reason for the philosopyhy. if that were the case that you need to add into count every person who can learn about the OS wich includes every language that it supports and everyone that has a computer wich out numbers the people interested in the philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacoboy42 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Numbers are not the only consideration. You might want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• It should never have been moved in the first place. Our naming conventions are not endorsements of certain viewpoints; they are simply meant to get people to the article they want to go to as quickly and easily as possible. On the English language Wikipedia, the vast majority of people looking for "Ubuntu" want the operating system. PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow (talk · contribs) registered three weeks ago and doesn't seem to have made any indication that he's read the previous discussions on the matter, other than this weaselly rant which holds no water. Move the page back and then we can have this discussion (again). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  As I said above, I think the move was correct, although it wasn't discussed first. That's why I didn't undo it myself, as WP:BRD would call for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've been reading everything on this page as it is written. I only wrote that because I have very limited space to write much else. As I metioned above, I wanted to see what other people had to say. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't correct. It's not like this hasn't been discussed to death over the years. The page should have been move-protected at the old title. The reason for moving it ("causing offense") was bogus, so the entire rationale for this discussion is invalid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One man's opinion is another man's.... rant. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have been editing on Wikipedia for much longer than three weeks. Yes this account was created three weeks ago, but I've been editing from both my computer's IP addresses for nearly a year. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I should not have implied that you were new to the project. However, your actions did not indicate an understanding of a long and well-worn path to the previous naming arrangement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A "bogus" stated reason doesn't necessarily invalidate a valid action.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as you haven't demonstrated that it was valid yet, that's not a premise we really need concern ourself with, given that the old title had an established consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point to disambiguation page. There are a large number of meanings of the word, and the operating system usage is less than 5 years old. The fact that usage on the Internet predominantly refers to the computer system is a sampling error, since I strongly suspect a full 100% of people who use the Ubuntu operating system use Internet, while only a much smaller fraction of those who use the alternate widespread meanings do. Since we don't intend to document the Internet first, and everything else secondarily, we should admit that there is a substantial alternate usage. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  This is an Internet-based encyclopedia. we exist to cater to our audience first and foremost, which may mean that we title things by common names and find predominant topics which match usage in the contemporary Internet-using generation in most cases. Moving this page because of an alleged perception that we are somehow doing an injustice to large groups of people unlikely to make much use of an English, Internet-based encyclopedia goes against those guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Another demonstration of cultural bias. You are apparently not aware that English is heavily used throughout the world, including in the regions where Bantu languages are spoken. You are dismissing Bantu speakers as not needing or being unlikely to use English Wikipedia based on a serious misperception of language use. Yworo (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Were the most common global use for the word "Ubuntu" to refer to the philosophy then you'd be right; we'd be showing a Western bias by pointing at an operating system used primarily in the developed world. However, as every single time that anyone has been asked to provide any sort of data regarding the relative worldwide usage of the terms the OS has been heavily favoured, I would suggest that this argument holds no water. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  This is an Internet-based encyclopedia. - true.

  we exist to cater to our audience first and foremost, - false, if by our audience you mean English speaking Internet users. If it were true, we would not, for example, allow, and in most cases, prefer printed reliable sources to Internet-based ones, allow non-English sources, etc. Our audience is the world, all of it, from the ones that turn on the Internet browsers on their laptops from the moment they get up in the morning and don't close them until they go to sleep, to the ones that only see it at their library once a month, to the ones that only get it in printed form on paper, one article at a time. We're based on the web because that's the best way to collaboratively edit the world's best encyclopedia, we're not based on the web because we're only writing for web users.

  Moving this page because of an alleged perception that we are somehow doing an injustice to large groups of people unlikely to make much use of an English, Internet-based encyclopedia - we're certainly doing an injustice to our users by pretending that those groups of people are somehow less important. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  No evidence has thus far been presented that the previously-determined primary usage is not still the primary usage, by any measure whatsoever. The majority of the support has actively assumed the opposite. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  It's been pointed out that due to the nature of the situation, using Wikipedia stats simply introduces a large sampling error. We can't base the decision on primary usage on these stats. And this is something you have not addressed. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and do you think maybe the fact that the "previously-determined primary usage" discussion was held in a non-neutral location might have had anything to do with the outcome? I do... Yworo (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Also, the outcome did not really show a strong consensus. It was, in case you haven't counted, 11 to 9, or only 55% for the OS being the primary usage. Yworo (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  I ask for proof and you give me rhetoric. To date, no metric whatsoever has been shown which gives the philosophical term even half the current usage of the OS. I simply don't believe that the argument that primary usage is somehow invalid here is logical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, you're in the minority, apparently, so I'm not sure why you continue to argue with me about it. Yworo (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Because browbeating is no substitute for debate, and whether I'm in the minority or not after a whole 24 hours of discussion is irrelevant because we don't judge consensus by counting heads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  I may be wrong, but I believe that most of the folks who (not) voted for the disambiguation did so based on the "extended discussion" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's a guideline-based argument which carries its own weight, regardless of the fact that you seem to disagree with it. I am under no illusion that I convinced anyone with my arguments, since only two other editors agreed with my position, so I'm not sure why you are under the illusion that I influenced the discussion by "browbeating". That's rather dismissive of the other editors' actual opinions. Yworo (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point to disambiguation. Well, actually, the (disambiguation) page should be moved here. Even when a large majority use a term one way, if there is a significantly sized minority use then Wikipedia's readers benefit from seeing the disambiguation page first. See for example oral contraceptive. I certainly consider 19,000 hits in a month to be a significantly sized minority. Lyrl^Talk _C 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Point to disambiguation, or make this page the disambiguation page. The philosophy and the operating system are both significant topics. Use a disambiguation page, that is what they are for. We definitely should not be using page rank or number of people that know a language to decide this. We do not "cater" to the internet community, in fact we license our work so it can be remade in any medium. We are dedicated to neutrality not the internet, we should not show preference to either subject. Chillum 22:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Point to disambiguation per C.Fred. Numbers or statistics aren't the issue here: redirecting Ubuntu to the philosophy or the operating system gives undue weight to one of the subjects. The software is named after the philosophy, why on earth would Ubuntu redirect to the operating system? For those who are looking for shortcuts see these existing redirects: Ubuntu os, Ubuntu OS. Finally, if we are going to make assumptions about users looking for Ubuntu (operating system) (which we shouldn't), we should assume they know how to use the internet to get help on the operating system. Linux for human beings or not, it's still Linux, which means a lot of hours spent on Google or Wikipedia researching problems. That's been my experience as a semi-recent Ubuntu convert anyway. [mad pierrot][t c] 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Be a disambiguation page. There is clearly a difference of opinion here, so the best action is the one that is simplest and causes an equal amount of minor distress to all parties. That is to make Ubuntu a disambiguation page, so everyone has to make one more link to get where they want to go. Any other course of action causes more problems for some people. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Restore Ubuntu (operating system) to Ubuntu or point to Ubuntu (disambiguation) I am a computer scientist, so I may be biased, but I have also studied philosophy and have never come across the term in that context. True, we cannot make assumptions about users, so we have to go with the odds of getting them what they want (where Ubuntu (OS) wins with numbers) or give any user the fewest number of clicks to get where they are really going by sending them to the disambig page. Any other choice would simply be illogical. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  As a computer scientist familiar with Wikipedia, you should know that those numbers are inaccurate because everyone who typed Ubuntu into the Wikipedia search box was sent to the OS. Whether they got to the article they wanted or not depends on how well the alternatives were linked (which varied over time) and how willing they were to follow them. We will only get accurate numbers when people choose from a disambiguation page. Yworo (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us, in these cases there are different criteria, like what "Google turns up", and how many "what links here" entries there are, That in this case its difficult to interpret the statistics is an aberration, but statistically the case is clear, the search term should result in the operating system article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  It's simply not described as a set algorithm like that. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  No but the gist of the directive is that a search item should point to the article that statistically most people would expect to turn up, to determine that these are valuable tools, not an "algorithm", but not invaluable either. Mahjongg (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Clearly you choose to read it that way, but that's not what it says. It goes on to say that even if the tools seem to indicate numerically a primary meaning, that if extended discussion ensues, which it has at least three five times ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) over this topic, then you conclude there is no primary meaning and you make the disambiguation page primary, regardless of the numbers. Yworo (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Response to Yworo Quote from above: "When Ubuntu (operating system) was actually Ubuntu, it received 142,304 hits in July 2009. In the same month, Ubuntu (philosophy) received 19,312 hits. Lastly, the Ubuntu (disambiguation) page was only hit 1,970 times." So, lets say that ALL of the hits that went to the philosophy article went through the Ubuntu article first, 142,304 minus 19,312 equals 122,922. That says to me: 122,922 people wanted the OS, only 19,312 wanted the philosophy article. Even if you take out the disambig hits saying that they went to the Ubuntu article first, you still have overwhelming numbers in the Ubuntu article, and significantly less hits on the other pages. Your statement was borderline an insult on my intelligence, I will not take it as a personal attack this time, but I encourage you to choose your words more kindly in the future. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 02:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, you are assuming the hatnote had a direct link, that the user noticed it, and that they followed the one or two clicks to get where they wanted to go. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But.... all numerical analysis is out in the face of repeated extended discussion, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title". If there's an algorithm for determining this, that part of it too. It's the "escape clause" when for whatever reason the numbers and the reality don't mesh. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  You keep quoting this policy about ongoing discussions. What does the policy say if that continued discussion is one user who keeps the discussion going? So far, you are one of two users who has voiced an opinion in favor of directing Ubuntu to Ubuntu (philosophy) (the other simply seconded your motion). I know, Wikipedia is not about votes, it's about consensus. I don't think anything else I say will change your mind about this issue. But that's ok, because it's the Wikipedia Community who will ultimately decide Ubuntu's fate. The facts are: The Ubuntu philosophy came first, but the operating system is a much more zeitgeist concept to the average user of the English Wikipedia. Google, Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines recognize current trends, and Wikipedia should too. Have you seen the Bing commercials where people keep taking things out of context? I would be disappointed to see that happen here. Sometimes, we must accept that our ideas are not always the consensus of the community. I would love to see IPA redirect to India Pale Ale, but alas, the International Phonetic Alphabet is a much more common meaning. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 04:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I also support to move to the philosophy page. I would comment further, but Yworo has said pretty much everything. The statistics are wrong due to the redirect forcing users to go to the operating system first; and the operating system (along with everything else on the disambig. page were named after the philosophy. While the OS may be the primary topic for north american and european users, you cannot say the same thing for the people of asia or africa or anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, Yworo is correct. Wikipedia's guidelines aren't written in stone. Read WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE. In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled in one case that the laws of Canada (or any nation) aren't black-and-white, but rather a series a guidelines for which to abide by, leaving room for interpretation and circumstance. This is essentially the same for Wikipedia. Anyways, The primary usage of Wikipedia isn't a search engine such as Google, Bing, Yahoo, it is an encyclopedia. And the fact the you would want IPA to direct to a beer is pretty sad of you. PopMusicBuff ^talk 05:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to accept making Ubuntu the disambiguation page. That's currently the consensus, which I don't really see that changing either way at this point, it's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says to do if there is extended discussion, which I take to mean when the topic comes up again and again as it has, especially if there is a consensus to do so or if there is no real consensus (close either way). Yworo (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  @PopMusicBuff I was giving an example. I am not about to attempt to overturn consensus. To say that wanting the IPA link changed is sad of me is a bit personal. Thankfully, I am not easily offended. Can we please keep this discussion free of personal attacks? back on topic: Sure, the statistics need to be interpreted, but can you really believe that there were that many users who could not find the philosophy topic? I scanned through the diffs a bit last night and found that Ubuntu had a hatnote to the philosophy for much of July 2009 and that it had a link to the disambig page at the very least during that month span (barring a few small cases of vandalism). As for Wikipedia being a search engine, it is not, however Wikipedia does contain a search engine, one that is constantly being improved by redirects and disambiguations. My point is that major search engines are trying to give users the most likely target, and Wikipedia should too. If in this case, that is a disambiguation page, so be it. @Yworo Very well, I'm ready to wrap this thread up. I still maintain my previous !vote above. If this discussion results in the link pointing to the disambig page, so be it. Perhaps this discussion can be brought up again with the statistics that you want (from the disambig page) after it has been like that for some time. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• First choice is that Ubuntu (operating system) should be moved back to Ubuntu. All the typical indicators of primary topicality for the purposes of disambiguation clearly favor the OS. However, considering the prolonged discussion, it is acceptable for the disambiguation page to be at Ubuntu. However, as there is not any primary topic, there shouldn't be any implication on the disambiguation page that there is one. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert move back to the operating system

This move should never have been, made! It is similar to a situation where someone would link the search term Iphone to Linksys iPhone, as indeed was attempted in the beginning of the Iphone article, but was overwhelmingly opposed and reverted. The reason is Simple, Wikipedia's naming system has always been designed to present the article that is expected by the most people. It cannot be denied that to the overwhelming majority that visits this Wikipedia (compared to one in an African language) will expect that a search for Ubuntu will show up the Operating system, not a much more obscure subject. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, a good benchmark for the popularity on the Internet of a term is to google for it, just "Ubuntu operating systems" gives 21 million hits (other very closely related terms give tens of millions hits more, "Ubuntu philosophy" gives just 2 million hits.Also the "what links here" pages are a good indication, the number of links to the operating system dwarfs the number to the philosophy page. According to Wikipedia policy Ubuntu should point to the operating system, and on the first line of the article there should be a link to the disambiguation page, just like the Iphone article, and just like it was before Mahjongg (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are, IMO, incorrect. What part of Wikipedia policy "dictates" that? Please be specific. Yworo (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply, as I said WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, to cite:

“ When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article ”

and

“ If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

”

Mahjongg (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So why are you ignoring the part about the extended discussion indicating that there may be no primary topic? Hmmm? Both topics qualify as well-known. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If anything, that there is this "extended discussion" is an indication that something about the initial move is horribly wrong, So instead of "ignoring it" Id say that to the contrary its indicative that the move was ill thought out. For a real example of this "rule" in action, read the history of the Iphone article, it was an ""extended discussion" also. Both topics are NOT equally well known, that is the whole point, and the tools that help determine that are given. Mahjongg (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but again you are simply IMO wrong. Like any other guideline on Wikipedia, it forms a starting-point for consensus, and a clear consensus is begining to form above. The previous discussion, even if it achieved a consensus (which is debatable), was only a weak consensus. And that was on a page where the OS folks were in the clear majority.

Also, I find it hard to believe that a concept discussed on the U.S. State Department website [17] and was the theme of the he theme of the recent 76th General Convention of the American Episcopal Church is in any way less well known. It may be less well known among geeks, but they are notorious for the blinders they wear with respect to broader facets of society. The software development process proliferates links and websites, but that's not an indicator of how well-known the OS is among the general populace, which has Windows-vision (80-what%). Yworo (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahjongg, I bet if you asked the average person from South Africa or other another country where Bantu is spoken what Ubuntu meant, they would give their interpretation of the philosophy. And if you asked the average person who is involved with open source software what Ubuntu meant, they would say the software. Just because you don't know about a subject or there is less internet traffic about it doesn't mean it isn't well known. Furthermore, the comparison you are drawing between Ubuntu and iPhone is completely ridiculous. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, this issue has come up many times before, and there is established consensus about what to do in such cases, there are very little "hard rules" in Wikipedia, as such, but there are "guidelines", that reflect how wikipedia "works", and this is one of them, the stats and links here do not lie, What you think that is important simply does not matter, what matters is what the bulk of wikipedia visitors expect, (that is English speaking visitors, visiting THIS Wikipedia), and for the record, the remark about "geeks" is frankly insulting. I DO know, and have known for some time what the philosophical term meant, but frankly most visitors here do NOT, and that is the point. Oh, and I wasn't "comparing" Ubuntu and Iphone at all, I was giving (just one) example of this "rule" in action. P.s. If statistically the most users here would be south african Bantu speaking visitors, you would be right, but that is not the case! Mahjongg (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't forget consensus can change.... and it's changing right now. Yworo (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The "consensus" for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't change because of some blather about this particular subject. The "guideline" Wikipedia uses in these cases is simple, the search item should turn up the most expected entry, it has nothing to do what is the most "important" entry. What is "most important" in this case clearly depends on your POV, but for Wikipedia that doesn't matter. I'm certainly NOT claiming that the ubuntu philosophy doesn't matter, far from it, Im simply saying objectively seen most people would expect the operating system to turn up when searching for Ubuntu. Mahjongg (talk)

That's not what the guideline actually says. And you know it. Yworo (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but South Africa has several official languages, one of which happens to be English.

I DO know, and have known for some time what the philosophical term meant, but frankly most visitors here do NOT, and that is the point.

So what if they don't know what it means? This is an online encyclopedia, a place above all else to educate people.

Oh, and I wasn't "comparing" Ubuntu and Iphone at all, I was giving (just one) example of this "rule" in action.

No, your comparison was that the philosophy is as obscure as Linksys iPhone, which is both ridiculous and offensive. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not read what I intended to say, I wasn't comparing things at all, I was giving an example of a case in which became very clear that a search should go to the page that one expects. I was referring to doomed attempts to move the iPhone article to "Apple iPhone", as discussed here [18] Mahjongg (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly is one? You? As you can see there is not a consensus (yet) on where one expects it to redirect to. That is why there is a RFC currently going. I think I can reduce your argument to this (please correct me if I am wrong):

• Most users searching Wikipedia for Ubuntu appear to be searching for the software (according to tools). Therefore it should be the target for the redirect.

Right? I'm ignoring that the statistics may be misleading (see above arguments for why), but I think that's the gist of your argument. [mad pierrot][t c] 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC

Who??? The "one" I was referring to isn't a person at all, its "just one example", one that I was familiar with. There will have been many other decisions been made using the same criteria, for there is a guideline about how to handle these matters now. Its not -my- argument, its what has boiled down to wikipedia policy. I am sure that time will prove that Ubuntu the operating system is what people will expect to find when searching for "ubuntu". Mahjongg (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The move was bad, and there was no consensus for it; the page should be moved back pending discussion of whether a move is necessary in the first place, as there's been absolutely no evidence provided that the old arrangement wasn't the best fit for our naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that would be counter-productive as the consensus so far seems to be that either the page Ubuntu should be the disambig page or a redirect to the disambig page. Yworo (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it does not matter what the consensus was, the new consensus is in favor of this being a disambiguation page. Chillum 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "new consensus". 24 hours of discussion have given various possible outcomes. We don't find consensus by counting heads, especially where there is absolutely no rationale for the original page move which holds water. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree on moving back to the OS the change should have never been made in the first place. more people looking at the en.wikipedia are looking for the OS. consensus was reached previously to be the OS and it was changed and locked before discussing. Yworo seems to be the only person figting it in the world, and from looking at his profile he just seems to not like ubuntu linux and this is his fule for the fight. Tacoboy42 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

At least 7, actually. For what it's worth, I like the Linux distro fine, and use it daily. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tacoboy42, please assume good faith here. Yworo is not the only person here that disagrees with you. I'm not sure how you gather that he does not like Ubuntu Linux; perhaps he has a preference for another distribution, but that hardly qualifies as a personal vendetta against Ubuntu (the operating system). I am another Ubuntu user, but I also think that Ubuntu should just be a disambiguation page. There have been several compelling arguments here already. Consensus can change. Perhaps it was a bad move, but at least it generated this discussion, which hopefully will lead to a new consensus. [mad pierrot][t c] 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like Ubuntu and have it installed on a laptop. While I mostly use Mac OS X on a day to day basis, I've currently got 5 different versions of Linux installed as virtual machines on it. And I admin a server running Gentoo. About the only OS I don't like is Windows in any flavor, even though I have to use it frequently for work. Ubuntu was named in honor of the philosophy. I think it's a shame that some Ubuntu users wish to dismiss that, and find it odd that it's not mentioned in the lead of the article on the OS. Appearances can be deceiving and your cross-internet psychic skills seems rather non-existent, Tacoboy. Yworo (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Well I think this debate has gone on long enough. It is obvious that there is going to be no proper solution anytime soon as people for both the OS and the philosophy have valid points. I propose, as Yworo has already mentioned, that in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that since a proper consensus can't be reached, and that this has turned into an extended discussion, that we leave the redirect at the disambiguous page and leave the full-protection intact. Also, it seems that a vast portion of people here already agree that it should go to the disambiguous page. Please also note that the rules of Wikipedia aren't black-and-white, but rather a set of guidelines. See WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE. PopMusicBuff ^talk 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the majority is in favour of this linking to or becoming the disambiguation page, and in lack of a consensus for it being anything else then that is what it should be. Chillum 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think we have reached enough of a consensus to close the discussion and have Ubuntu be a disambiguation page. [mad pierrot][t c] 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think we should close. Then an admin should perform the move of "Ubuntu (disambiguation)" -> "Ubuntu", as that seems to be what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states is appropriate for this situation. Yworo (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I counted all of the contributors to one way or another and there are 10 people for having it point to the OS and 10 to either the philosopy or disambiguation, more people agree that it should be the OS 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, go back and count each person who is for the OS, DIS or PHIL. I will tally them up if you are incapable of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is only 1 firm vote in support of pointing the redirect at the OS. There are 2 (or is it 3) for the philosophy, 7 for the disambiguation, plus one with an unfeasible first choice and second choice of disambiguation. So that's 1 for the OS, 10 or 11 against the OS. Yworo (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking only at the RFC discussion, I see roughly 9 for disambiguation, 2 for philosophy, and 4 for OS (some double-counting there, where people expressed two prefs, and adding my own).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

SerekOfVulcan's count is correct, there is clearly a majority of !votes for disambig. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Per apparent consensus above for disambiguation, I would like to propose the following steps be taken in a day or so.

1. Move Ubuntu (disambiguation) to Ubuntu, maintaining the current "Ubuntu is an ethical concept..." wording as the lead.
2. Change Ubuntu (disambiguation) to a redirect to Ubuntu, adding the {{R to disambiguation page}} that I misused before.
3. Change the hatnotes on Ubuntu (operating system) and Ubuntu (philosophy) to {{Otheruses3|Ubuntu}}.
4. Unprotect the pages, as consensus has been reached and will require discussion to change.

Sound good?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse let's wrap this up. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yworo (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. [mad pierrot][t c] 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse., --SF007 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(Hey, wait a second... why's everyone agreeing with me? Shouldn't somebody be complaining at ANI about the rouge admin?)

• Endorse Lets do this thing! (Sarek, it is your mighty logic that has given us no choice but to agree) Chillum 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Partially endorse. The disambig page should be moved to Ubuntu, but per WP:DAB and the Manual of Style, because the philosophical concept is not the primary topic, the link and definition of the philosophical concept should be moved out of the introduction and into the rest of the links, and the introduction should simply say "Ubuntu may refer to:". (This can be ignored if there's a really good reason, but skimming the above discussion, it doesn't seem like the MOS:DP requirement or the intro to the dab were ever really discussed.) Also, in regard to #3, there is absolutely no need for disambig hatnotes on Ubuntu (operating system) and Ubuntu (philosophy) because there's no reasonable way to arrive at either article looking for one of the other meanings. Propaniac (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed. The "new consensus" was formed around a loaded question (which begged that the page move was proper in the first place) and is therefore invalid. In addition, consensus which ignores weight of argument is just head-counting by another name. I've yet to see any non-bogus argument relating to the application of our naming guidelines here favouring the move. Thirdly, this page move broke the majority of inbound links to this page. Fourthly, we don't close RfCs after 24 hours for the very good reason that this places enormous weight on the opinions of the first people to respond to them. The original move should be undone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chris but there is a consensus and it has been acted upon. I see no reason to reverse it. Chillum 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

24 hours is not enough time to change a long-standing consensus, especially when the supposed "new consensus" is based on an argument which is either invalid or flat-out wrong (as it is). I'd have thought any admin with experience of the RfC process would be aware of that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have no illusion that the consensus was formed based on my arguments. I believe that the majority if not all the editors (not) voting to make Ubuntu a disambiguation really based their decision on the "extended discussion" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's an argument-based consensus that you simply don't agree with, that's all. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse with the caveat that the page should be a true disambiguation, and not go into greater depth about the philosophical concept; let Ubuntu(philosophy) do that. (In other words I agree with the first half of what Propaniac writes. I don't think there's anything wrong with disambig hatnotes on the philosophy and the OS, however - they're cheap, and might be useful.) --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NAMB supports the view that these hatnotes are worthless and should not be used. While I don't consider them the worst thing in the world, I have to ask: can you think of a single reasonable instance in which someone could navigate to Ubuntu (operating system) looking for something that is not an operating system? Is that more or less likely than navigating to Ubuntu Cola looking for something that is not a cola? (Well, thank God, turns out there's a disambig hatnote on the cola article, too.) Propaniac (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two minutes short of 24 hours since the RfC was added, it has been concluded by counting heads. What nonsense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - This was discussed 6+ months ago. Inconveniencing 100,000 wikipedia users by having to go to disambiguation page rather than the page that is desired. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Only 100,000? Maybe we should have made the philosophy primary. Yworo (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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.