Jump to content

Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

DAB format

From a linguistic standpoint, is Ubuntu (philosophy) the primary meaning of the word Ubuntu? Should it be defined first at the top of the disambiguation page? Yworo (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since every item on the list takes its name from Ubuntu (philosophy), I think it makes perfect sense to define and link to the philosophy in the first line of the dab page. Reducing it to merely one of a list is misleading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your position. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the matter, but I think this particular dispute has moved past third opinion and RFCs. There already has been an RFC, and this dispute isn't just between two editors. [mad pierrot][t c] 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a different question -- the RFC was over where "Ubuntu" should point. This is a particular question regarding formatting that hasn't been widely addressed yet. At the time I posted the 3O request, I was under the (probably-mistaken) impression that only Propaniac and I had edited on that topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you're right. I just have a feeling that this page will continue to be a source of conflict. [mad pierrot][t c] 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, with any luck we'll talk our way to consensus instead. *crossing fingers*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean *spreading fingers*? I'm sorry, I couldn't resist... [mad pierrot][t c] 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the cursebenefits of having an easily-recognizable username... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope. If it were the primary topic then that would be the case. It isn't the primary topic. End of story. That something is named after something else does not mean that it is defined by it; there is absolutely no reason one has to know what the Linux distribution is named after in the dab page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost every dab page on Wikipedia where the word is derived from another language give the details about what language it is derived from and its definition first. I'm sure you know that but would you like me to provide examples? Yworo (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Where the foreign word is not the primary usage there is no reason for that, and the existence of examples is no indication of settled precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case the foreign word is the primary usage, the Linux distro is a derived usage. We're not talking "primary topic" anymore. Shall I get a linguist to drop by? You're also ignoring the fact that it's not just the Linux distro that was derived from it. Every usage on the dab page was dervied from it. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite aside from there still having been absolutely no evidence presented using any metric whatsoever that the most common use of the word "Ubuntu" is to refer to the philosophy, you're taking "primary usage" to mean "root word" or something, which isn't what it means here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, that's what it can mean when we are discussing "primary topic". In this case we are discussing "primary meaning". There's a difference and you're simply not going to obscure that. "Primary meaning" isn't based on beancounting, even if Wikipedia's concept of "primary topic" sometimes can be. "Primary meaning" is what's listed first in the dictionary. The philosophy is the only use of the term listed in Wiktionary, which is as it should be, because dictionaries do not and should not list product or organization names unless they move into common usage (such as 'to xerox'). Yworo (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"Bean-counting" in the form of optimising for the most common articles is the main purpose of our naming guidelines. This entire argument is based on ignorance of the spirit of that guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My point, in case you'd missed it, is that we are no longer talking about article naming. We are talking about the content of a disambiguation page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply here. Yworo (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does. On articles which deign to follow our naming conventions, the primary usage is the one which is explained first in the dab, and the others naturally follow from it. In this case, if one assumes that the page move was valid then one also assumes that there is no primary usage. As such, it is inappropriate to give any subject "top billing" by way of an introductory line in the lede. Doing so would result in an inconsistency where we're treating the philosophy as the primary subject in the dab page but not when it comes to titling the pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll make this section a language and linguistics RfC so we can get some input from some editors with knowledge of linguistics. Yworo (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering that the distro was supposed to "bring the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world", it seems there is indeed a reason to put it there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dare say that Mark Shuttleworth did not predicate the spending of huge amounts of capital on a Linux distribution on a word. Again, that argument is rhetoric which isn't backed up by any guideline or consensus on the makeup of dab pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Really, I think that anyone who doesn't like that fact the Linux distro was named after the philosophy specifically because that philosophy is similar to the "free software" philosophy should run a different distro, say Tinfoil Hat Linux. (Although this gives me a great name for a new Linux distro, Arrogant Bastard Linux to be distributed free with six-packs of Arrogant Bastard Ale.) Yworo (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Or we could just send discs out with cases of Ubuntu Cola.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm waiting for one of the Ubuntu Linux guys to append the word yet to the sentence "Ubuntu Cola is not affiliated with the Linux distribution Ubuntu". Yworo (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This continual implication that anyone who disagrees with your position here is somehow opposed to the Ubuntu philosophy is unproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Where's your sense of humor? I've discovered that SarekOfVulcan likes humor. We're simply exchanging jokes. If you didn't understand that, I'm letting you know now. Yworo (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're unable to detect what might be insulting about random allusions to tinfoil hats, "anyone who doesn't like that... the distro... was named after the philosophy" and "Arrogant Bastards" in the middle of this debate then you'd maybe be best deploying your sense of humour outside of open RfCs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Since I wasn't speaking of any editor in particular, feel free to try on the shoes and do be sure to let us all know how they fit. Yworo (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Consider this a warning for making veiled personal attacks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Struck. Does that satisfy you or should I remove them? Yworo (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Chris that easily-identifiable anonymous attacks fall under WP:NPA. Thanks for striking above. I did unstrike one that didn't look like an attack to me - if anyone disagrees, feel free to fix. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. Apologies to anyone who was offended by it. Yworo (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no primary topic so far as WP:Disambiguation is concerned and the lede to the disambiguation shouldn't imply that there is. I've no problem with putting the philosophical term first in the list, but it should not be formatted with piped links and there should not be multiple blue links in the line. older ≠ wiser 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring during an RfC on the issue. I intend to ask the admin involved to revert you and reprotect the dab page pending resolution. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Declined: it's a content dispute, and there's insufficient recent activity to justify protection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • RfC response. As an editor, I think that clarity and simplicity are best served by having searches for the unqualified term arrive at the dab. This satisfies the demand of logic to parse the searcher's meaning when it is ambiguous, whether the searcher knows it or not, and does the searcher the valuable kindnesses of a) offering choice, and b) educating the searcher that the term has multiple meanings. Speaking on the other hand as a Wikipedia user, I have to say that there is nothing in Wikipedia that irritates me more than getting caught in a confusing loop of subject-dab-subject created because prominence was allowed to trump logic. On the dab page, I would list the philosophy first, as it predates the naming of the OS. The partisans of sending searchers to the OS need to understand that there is an underlying philosophy of encyclopedia construction which itself has a history of development reflecting progressive refinement. You would be wrong if you believed that this contest between getting users directly to what they came wanting versus teaching them first the place of their object in relation to wider fields of knowledge hadn't already been had. It has been had, very truly over hundreds of years. The philosophical choice, by consensus of master practitioners over long cycles of use and critique, was made to prioritize contextualization ahead of efficiency to the uneducated user. The conscious choice of this priority, and design calculated to serve it, are themselves the distinguishing characteristics of an encyclopedia! It is further understood that an educated user will come to an encyclopedia with the specific wish to sacrifice efficiency for breadth and depth of knowledge. To say all of this is not to disrespect other choices made in other contexts for other uses, such as software usability, which have their own and different philosophies and histories of development. Peace out. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still open for discussion? I agree with Yworo and SarekOfVulcan's posts at the top of the section, that the philosophy should be listed first. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still open for discussion? I agree, the OS must be listed first. --September 2009 (UTC) argentina (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Defining the root word (philosophy) would make this page flow better, in addition to being more informative. Is there any policy reason not to add this? Quantumelfmage (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The last 7 edits on this page have been bouncing around the order of the philosophy and the operating system. The last edit to move the operating system first said, "See talk page". I see the talk page, and in my interpretation it ended with the RfC response above, which clearly mandated having the philosophy first. Am I reading the conclusion of this correctly? I've tried to look around for another conclusion in another section, but this is the only one that seems pertinent to the DAB ordering. Are other editors misreading or simply ignoring the talk page? (For the record, I think that Here.it.comes.again summed things up very elegantly, I certainly am not trying to revisit his conclusion.) HiltonLange (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Two Cents

It seems like the debate has pretty much wrapped up, but I'd like to say something anyway. The reason that we made the word link to a dab page in the first place is because we couldn't agree on which definition should be "first" or "focused on". So making one definition more prominent than the other on the disambiguation page wouldn't solve the problem at all; we'd be right back where we started. Thus, I think we should leave it as it is now, though I don't so much care about the order; I just don't think it needs more content if we don't want the debate to start back up again.

As for the argument that encyclopedias should educate people about things they aren't looking for, I feel I should state that Wikipedia has a search function. I don't think anyone is suggesting that, in the true spirit of encyclopedias, we should get rid of it; thus, this argument is a double standard. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile, but it's important to remember that Wikipedia is NOT a traditional encyclopedia, and it has its own rules and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownwarrior33 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Description of operating system

To expand on my recent edit summary: The MOS says, "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." All this bickering over how to define Linux or whatever the hell you're arguing about is totally unnecessary, because the reader who comes to this page looking for the topic at Ubuntu (operating system) is not going to sit there staring, totally flummoxed, wondering, "Gee, I'm not sure whether that topic is the one referred to as an operating system, or an African philosophy, or a cola beverage. I really wish this page would explain which of these is a Linux distribution, or a GNU kernel or a GNOME thingamajig, because without that information I just can't figure it out." We don't need to say any of that, let alone argue about it. Propaniac (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. The next line is says " In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." so no description is also OK, as per your edit...but... I agree best to avoid any controvercial descriptions, but it could be argued that "Ubuntu cola" might be an OS, and I meet people daily that that don't know what the term "operating system" is, but everyone knows "computer". So in conclusion, I'd settle at minimal description rather than no description for these entries. I would judge the entries in this dab page need a similar level of description. No mention of Linux or GNU needed though. Widefox (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How the page now reads seems fine -- certainly better than a lot of dab pages out there -- and in no need of changing, but I'd point out that in general what descriptions should be is the minimum necessary to distinguish among the existing entries on the page.
The theory is that you've arrived at this page because you already have something Ubuntu-ish in your head, not that you're coming in wondering what a Ubuntu is at all. So, seeing on the page that your choices are: OS, cola, philosophy, location, or fictional character, should be more than sufficient to direct you to the proper page, or tell you that no such page currently exists in WP. Longer descriptions are only necessary if there are two OSes, or two colas, and so on. Certainly, just saying "Ubuntu Cola", with nothing else given, pretty much shouts out to me that the given entry will be about a cola-flavored beverage.
The overarching idea is that a dab page isn't something you linger on -- it's a routing mechanism. The secondary idea is that any gingerbread on the page distracts you from finding the link that's relevant to you. A tertiary idea is that the more actual content-like material is on the page, the harder it is to maintain and keep from diverging from where content is really supposed to live, which is within articles, not dab pages. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia needs to pander to people who would be looking for an operating system and not recognize whether they should click on Ubuntu (operating system) or Ubuntu Cola. At some point we have to assume a basic level of competence and literacy. While I agree that not everybody would recognize the term "operating system," I think it's a fair assumption that people looking for that article would be able to figure out that it's what they're looking for. If Ubuntu redirected to Ubuntu (operating system), presumably the hatnote, like the first sentence of that article, would explain that this article is about an operating system (as opposed to "This article is about a thingy that runs on your computer machine") and expect users to identify from that information whether it was their sought article or if they needed to look at the disambiguation page for other uses. Propaniac (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no harm to including a brief description. I firmly disagree with making descriptions terse simply for the sake of terseness. Seems rather silly and counterproductive. older ≠ wiser 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
we're discussing over the *level* of disambiguation needed. I gave the same level as on other pages, and the other entries in this page. Before my edit it was inconsistent for both. Compare with Red Hat (disambiguation) - "Red Hat Linux, a computer operating system" and "Red Hat sect, a sect of Tibetan Buddhism". This is exactly the same level as my edit on the this page. DAB should not be an technical exercise in brevity. Widefox (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with "no harm" -- no *great* harm, perhaps, but I discuss several reasons above why briefer is better. (I also mentioned that the page at that point was fine as-is; it wasn't worth editing this page just to trim the descriptions down further.)
Disambiguation pages should be as uncluttered as possible. Saying there's "no harm" to adding just a little bit more -- "it's wafer thin" -- is a slippery slope.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'll personally leave the page as-is for now, but besides the general harm in adding clutter that makes the page harder to quickly scan, there's also the harm--as already seen in this page's history--created by people arguing about the specific text of a description that's unnecessary in the first place. I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't come and see the description "in computing" and think "Oh, I can improve that description" and then we'll be back to bitching about whether GNOME is a kernel or a GNU or whatever the hell they were bickering about before.
By the way, I'm not even looking at Red Hat (disambiguation) because odds are very good that that page is a mess that doesn't meet the guidelines at all, as are most of the many thousands of disambiguation pages. It's never that great an idea to say "This other article does X, so we should do the same thing," but it's an even worse idea with disambiguation pages, because so many of them are done really badly. Which is a large part of why I oppose needless clutter even in cases like this, where it doesn't matter so much, because people look at how a page is done and then they absorb that that's how it should be done. The idea that every entry needs a description is one of the worst misconceptions about dab pages. Propaniac (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing the danger that editors think they must add more text is greater the *smaller* the text, and *highest* when no text is there. Anyhow, we can talk of dangers, but I think getting articles to the guidelines, and consistent is important. Although not every entry needs a description (technically), being too brief is ambiguous, and the definition of ambiguous is for humans, not logic. Coming back to the article, none of the entries would technically need any description to logically disambiguate them, but I consider for general readers all of them to benefit from some. RH DAB - you won't know if it's a mess until you look, in fact...is a good example, as another editor has got in line with DAB, so trying to build consensus here, as we consensus edit here don't we?! Widefox (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination against Linux?

Hi, I'm just an ordinary visitor who dropped by looking for info on Ubuntu/the operating system. I have to say I find it baffling how this page doesn't link to the page for the operating system. The extra click is just such a pain. Considering that Ubuntu has become such a big thing that is rapidly changing the world of Linux and operating systems in general, I find it hard to understand why an open encyclopedia discriminates against an open operating system in this way. After all, when you search for "Windows" or "OSX" you will also be sent to the pages for these systems. The same goes for other words which are almost exclusively identified with a certain object or person (search for "Obama"). And I feel it's fair to say that this also pertains to the word "Ubuntu" (sorry, no sources to cite :-)). Now, I'm not a Wikipedia member, I don't know how you run these discussions here and I only roughly understand Wikipedia's guidelines (which seem to be the reason to link to this dab page), but I still find it funny how you make life hard for ordinary visitors like me. Also, seeing how standards and guidelines seem to be applied inconsistently across the board makes me wonder who is really pulling the strings here. It certainly hurts my trust in Wikipedia. --178.25.109.156 (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OSX isn't a word. Windows only goes directly to the OS because it is a plural, if you search for Window it will take you to the common meaning. Ubuntu is a word which had a meaning before the operating system was created. Fedora goes to the hat, not Fedora (operating system) for the same reason, pre-existing word. SuSE goes to the OS, again, only because there is no such word. Same with Slackware. A gentoo is a penguin, so Gentoo Linux is needed to get to the OS. Of course, Linux goes to the OS, because there is no pre-existing word. So how could we be discriminating against Linux? Those are the breaks when a pre-existing word is used as the name of a product. Yworo (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I admit 'discrimination against Linux' may not be the most precise description, but what I was trying to raise the point that Wikipedia makes it harder for people to find information about the single most important Linux system out there. Given the magnitude of change that Ubuntu is inducing, I think it is fair to say that the word 'Ubuntu' is almost uniquely associated with the operating system.
It doesn't matter if OSX is a word or not. It's a name, or a search term, just like 'Windows' or 'Ubuntu'. Now, there had been things with the names 'Windows' or 'OSX' before the respective operating systems were induced -- e.g. a 1980 film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_%28film%29). But we're not linking to the dab pages for the simple reason that people expect to find the operating systems when looking up these terms. This phenomenon is not confined to technological terms. You could go through Wikipedia and find many pages where this is the case. And that's alright. No problem with that.
All I'm trying to put forward is that you have to draw a line somewhere. And this is where you're not correct: If you're saying search terms with more than one meaning have to link to dab pages, do it for all pages where this is the case. If you say Ubuntu doesn't link to the OS because the word had a meaning before the introduction of the product, apply the same standards to OSX and Windows pages. Everything else would be discrimination IMHO.
I'm not trying to restart the discussion here. As I'm not directly involved with Wikipedia I don't intend to pursue this further. I was simply hoping that some constructive criticism by an occasional visitor could shed some light on this and give you folks who run this place here a new perspective.--178.25.89.105 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You say "If you're saying search terms with more than one meaning have to link to dab pages, do it for all pages where this is the case."
That's not what I said. We link to dab pages when no meaning is primary. I argued the the philosophy was primary and that that's where the search term should go. That article would have a "For the operating system" link. However the consensus was that neither the philosophy nor the OS were the primary meaning, which means we have to link to a disambiguation page. We don't link to a disambiguation page when we don't have to. Neither OSX nor Windows is in any way ambiguous, therefore they don't need to be disambiguated. Yworo (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's processes are far from perfect, and all this original word vs created word stuff is correct, but not the core point. I feel the need to respond here just to provide some information to the original poster of this section. They are operating under the assumption that Ubuntu Linux is far more relevant in an encyclopedia and should be far more prevalent to searchers. The discussion is now archived, but some numbers were crunched by a few editors a while back, and the result was: If you asked a random person on earth what "Ubuntu" was, far more would refer to the philosophy than the Linux distro. This may seem counterintuitive to most readers of wikipedia, but most wikipedia readers are not from Africa, nor have they been exposed to the beliefs of African people, or how central a tenet Ubuntu is to their traditional way of life. Conversely, most rural people in the world without access to computers have never been exposed to Linux, or any operating system in particular.
There may still be some valid debate about whether wikipedia should choose primary topics based on relevance to the world's population, or relevance to average wikipedia users, but the reason you're seeing a disambiguation page is not some clear failing of wikipedia's process - it's simply because your worldview only exposes you to one aspect of the word. Consider it a learning opportunity. --HiltonLange (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about undiscussed pagemove

The discussion about the undiscussed move of this page is at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Link_away_from_disambiguation. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic

I know this has been discussed already, but I'd just like to point out a few things.

  1. Regarding article traffic, far more (~ 7X as many) people are choosing to look at the operating system than the philosophical concept. Obviously people are choosing to look at the operating system when presented with the choices on the disambig page. (And I doubt the traffic would be anywhere near as high as it currently is for the philosophical concept, if people weren't being presented with it on a disambiguation page -- i.e. I would be willing to bet that the only reason that 90% of it's visitors are going there is because their curiousity was stimulated when they got a disambig page instead of the article they were looking for -- the OS)
  2. People have pointed out that "if you selected a person from random on earth and asked them what Ubuntu meant, then they'd mention the philosophy concept.". First of all, I don't know that this is even true (it would be more accurate to say "if you selected a random person from Africa ..."), but more importantly, our readership isn't "every person on earth". It's every English-speaking person on earth with computer access. If you selected a sample from that group, I highly doubt they would predominantly mention the African ethical concept. (On the other hand, if we were on the Swahili language Wikipedia, the primary topic would mostly likely be the ethical concept)

The vast majority of our readers are clearly looking for the operating system. Why are we making them go through a disambiguation page to get there? Even if there is some convincing Wikilaw argument regarding how to choose the primary topic, I'd say that this is a clear case of where we should apply WP:IAR -- obviously our readers would appreciate not having to waste their time going through the extra link to get to the article they are overwhelmingly interesting in reading. It would improve the encyclopedia to make Ubuntu go directly to the page that almost everyone is looking for (this is not an empty claim that "almost everyone is looking for it" either -- they simply are, as evidenced by the traffic statistics) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there really some life in this horse that people want to keep kicking? - Team4Technologies (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, yes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There are 12-13 million Ubuntu Linux users, across all languages, countries and cultures. In South Africa alone there are 50 million people who would identify Ubuntu as being primarily the philosophy. I'm not sure how far up the continent the prevalence of the philosophy extends, somewhere between the extremes of 100 and 800 million people, depending if you consider people of Bantu origin, or all of sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between. English is an official language in most of those countries. The word has been used in speeches by Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright amongst many others. Without crunching all the numbers, I'd suggest it's highly likely that the earlier assertion is true, worldwide, more people would identify the philosophy than the operating system. My point is simply: Be careful of assuming that something is of no significance simply because you haven't been exposed to it.
Yes, there is a large overlap between Linux users and Wikipedia users. Yes, people searching for Ubuntu go to the Linux page more often than the philosophy page. However, one of the core criticisms of Wikipedia is that is shows a systemic bias and undue weight towards technology topics and American point of view. Deciding to give primary topic prominence to the Linux distribution over the philosophy would only reinforce that bias and diminish the value of Wikipedia. I disagree fundamentally with your assertion that wikipedia should be written exclusively for people with computer access. The information on these pages is reproduced routinely in other media, or searched from schools and libraries even in countries where people may not having computers in their homes.
WP:IAR is for cases when the rules suggest doing something that is counter to common sense. This is not one of those cases, where people are just slavishly following the rules. The disambiguation page is what has emerged from having this discussion countless times. This issue went to WP:RfC to get an experienced editor's opinion, and I think he stated it very elegantly. Before continuing this discussion, please scroll up to read Here.it.comes.again's RfC response about the issue. If you feel you have a good reason why the page should be changed, just ensure you've read the previous opinions and decisions and are bringing something new to the table, otherwise we just end up with the same discussions every few months. --HiltonLange (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well said, HiltonLange. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3 most common languages in South Africa are Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans:

  • In Zulu Wikipedia, There's even no article for philosophical Ubuntu, only Linux Ubuntu exists.
  • In Xhosa Wikipedia, no article for both.
  • In Afrikaans Wikipedia, where the philosophy concept is named Ubuntu as "primary" topic while Ubuntu (Linux) is "discriminated", Ubuntu (Linux) (stat.) is still more viewed and higher ranked in traffic than the philosophical Ubuntu (stat.).

--Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only criteria given in the guidelines is that the topic is "more likely than all the others combined to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." The OS exceeds this by quite some margin. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have strong sympathies for both sides. On one hand I am one of those who only learned about the philosophical concept when it came up in connection with the operating system, so it seems natural for me that the operating system should be the primary topic. On the other hand, a philosophical concept is much closer to being a key encyclopedic topic than an operating system. The exception for "vital articles" in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems too weak to me. Ultimately it's about the principle of least surprise. It's much more surprising to find a barely encyclopedic topic when searching for a key encyclopedic topic than the other way round.
A discussion in which similar considerations played a role can be found under Talk:Ebert. However, in the present case the more popular and less encyclopedic topic is also the more international one, while the philosophical idea is essentially of geographically restricted importance. That's almost enough for me to support the operating system as primary topic: I don't think that a user searching for "Ubuntu" the concept will be surprised to be presented with the operating system to the same degree as a user searching for "Ebert" the German president who would be presented with an American TV personality. Hans Adler 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Time and time again I have opposed this page move. It has become emotional to me, symbolic of systemic bias, of the lack of awareness that a community might have that there are tens of millions of (English) people to whom the word means something completely different. I've perceived it as arrogant, and been proud of wikipedians each time it has gone to administrators and editors who have considered the move and decided to stick with a DAB.
I took a good read through WP:PRIMARYTOPIC today, as well as the talk page there. It has been updated since the last time this I've participated in this debate, and I will be the first to admit that under current guidelines, the DAB should redirect to the OS. The new guidelines, and the intent behind them, is simply to minimize the number of clicks that the average user has en-route to their intended topic. Considerations about contextualizing the topics or educating users are absent. By those guidelines and metrics, there's not too much debate about which article should appear after "Ubuntu" is searched for. If the discussion comes up for debate again, I will support a redirect. (I prefer a redirect to a page move because of the ease of making or undoing the change). My point of view has moved from one of principle, to one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I will be the first to update my opinion once the supporting facts (or guidelines in this case) have changed.
For the record, I stand by my opposition to the undiscussed page move - that wasn't the way it should have been done, it broke the archives, and it's not fair to simply bypass discussion when the current consensus was opposed to you. --HiltonLange (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment on your last phrase "when the current consensus was opposed to you". I believe the editor was not aware of the existing consensus and was simply trying to help and edited boldly. I don't think it was defiance, it was innocent ignorant bliss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think that a nice, bold hatnote on the philosophy on top of a primary "Ubuntu" article that is about the OS would satisfy both the "what people using WP are looking for" and the "let's not ignore the original meaning per systematic bias of what we en-WP writers and users know about". The user would find the page that they were probably looking for, and the first thing that they would see was a reference to the original (philosophical). Awickert (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree - a hatnote is totally sufficient. Our function is to serve our readers, not to act as promoters/advocates for the philosophical concept. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But the operating system is not the primary topic outside of computer users. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But it is the primary topic for Wikipedia users, so as long as that is the case, we're making those who use this as a resource do a runaround. I think that the hatnote proposal manages optimize the acknowledgment of the two major meanings and the practicality for WP users. Awickert (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please read the following passage from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term.
Our readers (nearly all of whom are computer users) are clearly looking for the OS (nearly 8 times as often as the philosophy), and that is what they are more likely to type into the search box. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But we do not know that the hit counts you're seeing are caused by readers entering "Ubuntu" in the Search box, as opposed to readers using wikilinks in other articles to reach the pages. The hit counts are a tool to help editors reach consensus on that (and those hit counts are a good indication of it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of users who haven't see the conversation at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system), here are the article traffic statistics for the different Ubuntu articles:

Meaning Pageviews (December) % of total Dec Pageviews Wikilinks % of total Wikilinks
OS 125701 85.2% 2149 (2778)[1] 81.1% (84.7%)[1]
Philosophy 17131 11.6% 195 7.4% (5.9%)
Font 2248 1.5% 118 4.5% (3.6%)
Cola 2207 1.5% 116 4.4% (3.5%)
Municipality 331 0.2% 73 2.2% (2.8%)

[1] The first number includes just links to Ubuntu (operating system). The parenthetical includes all links to Ubuntu as well as links to Ubuntu (operating system). A quick examination shows that almost all of the links to Ubuntu (at least, every one I looked at) refer to the OS. -- (Table created by User:Prodego) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't why we had to split this discussion off into two places, that is rather confusing. But in any case, I'll reiterate what I've already said here. We can tell, based on the numbers of Wikilinks and the numbers of hits, which 'Ubuntu' article most readers want to read. As said above, we don't know how they got there, but we can make a judgement on which Ubuntu defintion is the most likely for a reader to be looking for. We can also assume that for most of these articles, the reader would use 'Ubuntu' as a search term to find the article. Therefore, we can pretty confidently say that if an average reader types 'Ubuntu' in to the search bar, the article they are looking for is going to be in proportion to the number of readers that article has. As in the data above, the vast majority of pageviews and links go to the OS page. It would improve reader experience 80-90% of the time, based on the assumptions I've outlined above, to take these readers directly to the OS page if they search 'Ubuntu'. Every other article will still be accessible, via the disambig page. The goal here though is to create the best resource for our readers. And those readers, are by in large looking for the OS. I don't see why we should inconvenience them when we have an 80% to 90% chance of improving their experience by taking them directly to the page on the OS. I fail to see how improving reader experience is introducing a 'bias'. What you haven't answered is why, if I know that 8 out of 10 people searching for a particular term are looking for a certain article, I would ever not want to give them that page? This isn't about bias - this is entirely about reader experience. All the pages for all the definitions of Ubuntu exist and are accessible to all readers, and all are (ideally) presented neutrally and without bias. The project for countering systematic bias refers to adding information t on topics that we are categorically missing. It certainly has nothing to do with disambiguation pages. Prodego talk 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Does your searchbar not give you suggestions? For 99% of people typing "ubuntu" into the search bar, the first suggestion that comes up will be the operating system, so they aren't losing any time by having the pages dabbed as they are. As to the location of the debate - well, it's kind of traditional for discussions about a dab page to take place on the talk page attached to it. That's why there have been previous discussions here and in the archives. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
When I type "ubuntu" into the search bar, I get 10 suggestions, none of which are Ubuntu (operating system). —Darxus (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
When I type it in, Ubuntu (operating system) is the first item returned. In fact, I only have to type "ubun" to get it, but I typed the complete string. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, technical features are not an argument against following content guidelines. So everything I say after this is someone for your own information. The search suggestions actually do have the requirement that your browser have javascript enabled, which admittedly most do. But I don't have any idea how the ordering of the mediawiki suggestions works, and it certainly shouldn't be relied on to be constant. Prodego talk 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But the reason that this is being debated at all is the idea (not a proof, just an idea) that the users of the Internet are technical, and their primary search is for the OS. The argument on the other side is that the idea (not a proof, just an idea) that the OS is not the primary sense of the term to all English-speakers around the world. Since it's an argument made in light of computer users, we ave to assume the users have the ability to search. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So instead, you assume that those who are searching for the philosophy are unable to search? No matter what way these pages are arraigned, all of them will be accessible to readers. The only thing that changes is the number of clicks each one has to make. If we can reduce that number, on average then that is a win for usability. Even if you allow the drop down search suggestions menu as an argument, changing this page to be about the OS would do that. This is entirely ignoring the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, which also quite explicitly says "If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." Prodego talk 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But I think we can say, given the extensive debate, that there is not a clear primary topic. The horse is dead. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Extensive debate does not mean that there is no primary topic. There can be extensive debate that yields a primary topic. (And the guidelines removed the nod to debate back in April.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we can say that, given the extensive debate when the OS is clearly the primary topic (again, see the passage from that guideline that I've quoted above), that there is a group of very persistent and highly vocal advocates for the philosophy who have managed to illogically disambiguate a subject that should clearly point to the OS per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This simply means that we need to bring in neutral, uninvolved editors who are not so attached to the philosophy, and who can advocate for adhering to policy instead. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm newly come to this debate. I know little and care even less about both the computer thing and the philosophy. What I do care about is disambiguation and having correct links in Wikipedia. From that point of view the current situation, with the dab page at "Ubuntu" is the best. DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
response to Prodego: I don't think that those who search for the philosophy are incapable of searching. I was simply presenting the argument that was being made. It's not one with which I agree.
I don't agree that either the OS or the philosophy should be the primary topic though. I prefer the current disambiguation page as it is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
response to Jrtayloriv. I am a user of Ubuntu and I am not an advocate of the philosophy. In fact, had it not been for the OS I would have probably gone until this summer's World Cup in South Africa not knowing the term. With that said, I don't think that the OS should be made the landing page over the disambiguation page. You'll have to find some very vocal sources to back your opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that I have data, and I have an analysis of why the OS should be the primary topic. Below are what I hope are fair summaries of each arguments against, and a response to each:

  • HiltonLange: "Be careful of assuming that something is of no significance simply because you haven't been exposed to it."
    Indeed, we do not want to make assumptions here, this decision should be based on fact. That is why I have supplied two sets of data both indicating the OS is the intended page for 80 to 90% of the readers of 'Ubuntu' topic on Wikipedia, and that within wikipedia 80% to 90% of the uses of links to Ubuntu mean the OS.
  • Hans Alder: "A philosophical concept is much closer to being a key encyclopedic topic than an operating system"
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All the content on Wikipedia should be of encyclopedic topics, which is why we have the inclusion guidelines of WP:N as well as the WP:V policy. So far as I am aware, WP:VITAL is simply a list of articles that have been judged important to include in a non comprehensive version of Wikipedia. They are not elevated or otherwise prioritized on Wikipedia itself, as (for example) BLPs are. The definition of "key encyclopedic topic" sounds rather hazy and ambiguous to me. What is key to one person may not be so important to another, which is why we have to look at aggregate statistics of what is important to the readers as a whole.
  • Walter Görlitz: "The operating system is not the primary topic outside of computer users"
    Do you have any evidence of that? Does it generalize to readers of Wikipedia, which is our target demographic? I have data.
  • DuncanHill: Given the extensive debate, there must be no primary topic.
    The point of debate is to develop consensus. If we gave up as soon as anyone disagreed with anything, we would get nowhere.
  • DuncanHill: What I do care about is disambiguation and having correct links in Wikipedia. From that point of view the current situation, with the dab page at "Ubuntu" is the best.
    Actually if you look at the page links to Ubuntu you will find the exact opposite is true. The majority of links to the dab page (of which there should be none) mean the OS.

To summarize, I've provided data to support my argument that the page should be moved. All I hear in opposition is that you don't like it. Prodego talk 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not my point at all. I was summarizing a point made in another discussion.
Second, you have data that the page hits are greater, not that humans are actually reaching those pages. For all we know, it's spiders that are going unidentified as such. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason to assume that spiders choose to visit the operating system page more than the philosophy? If not, then assuming equal proportions of spider hits for each page, the OS still has nearly 8 times as many hits. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Followed here from another, Linux-based site. They stop after they catalogue the first page outside of the domain they're actually cataloguing. No proof. Just a theory. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
From what I've heard about web crawlers as a percentage of Wikipedia's overall traffic is that it is a very very small percentage. But if evil robots are screwing up the results, there isn't much I can say about that. Prodego talk 08:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Response to Prodego 1) I'm not suggesting "giving up as soon as anyone disagrees with anything", I'm pointing out that there has been extensive debate over a long period of time, as you would have known if you had bothered to look at the talk pages and their archives before moving the pages. 2) I personally fixed the incoming links to Ubuntu after the page move and reversion, there were in fact very few, which suggests very strongly that the current dabbing is effective. I did find some misdirected links from mis-spellings, which should have come here to the dab page but which went to the computer thing instead. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where HiltonLange pointed out that all that "extensive debate over a long period of time" happened before substantial change to what is apparently the primary guideline for this subject, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?

Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.

—Darxus (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there no response to this? We've already shown that the OS almost certainly is "more likely than all the others [topics] combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term [Ubuntu] in the Search box", and that's the guideline. Prodego talk 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This horse is dead and you're the only one what wants to keep beating it. Please refer to the lengthy discussions and consensus concerning this topic. - Team4Technologies (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can change. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been updated since the last serious round of debate, and I believe the change makes it clear that the OS is in fact the primary topic. --Falcorian (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)No, this is not a "dead" topic -- see WP:CCC. And it is manifestly false that he is the only person interested in discussing it -- there are several users that have stated that they believe that the OS is the primary topic. Furthermore, those that claim that the OS is the primary topic have backed their argument up with a reference to the policy on primary topics, rather than weak arguments about the importance of advocating for the philosophy or targetting this website to people without internet access. Unless someone can provide a good reason why, in light of this discussion, the OS should not be considered the primary topic (even though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC incontestably says it should be), then I suggest we go ahead to requested moves. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, since the majority of readers seem to support or feel ambivalent about the move, rather than opposing it, I've gone ahead and started an RM discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please clear up links to this disambiguation page

Based on the above discussions, it has been decided that Ubuntu still stays as a disambiguation page. So, please help clear up links that are directed to this page. Thanks. Hydriz (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I didn't do them all, but I did a few of them. - Team4Technologies (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I did an AWB run to pick up the rest.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I just did a stack of the redirects, dabbed a few pages in the processs too. There were some redirects from typos which had been pointing at the computer thing, I left them pointing here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
When I checked there was one non-redirect still pointing to it (Josh Woodward), I DABed the link to Ubuntu (operating system). --Falcorian (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

People with the name

MOS:DABNAME and WP:PTM both point to separating Ubuntu Goode from the actually ambiguous entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, Would someone expect to find anything about Ubuntu Goode by searching only for Ubuntu? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

The following discussion 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.

Resolved

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ubuntu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Very handy, thanks. ;)  狐 FOX  00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The bot should have notified the talk page of the operating system article, but didn't. I have done so. I have also notified on the talk page for the philosophy article, as moving the dab page could affect that too. It would have been appropriate for the person proposing the move to have ensured proper notification. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
IP is correct -- I did screw up when posting up the RM. It's likely something stupid I did that broke it. Did I break anything else? (might not hurt to check) Sorry -- I haven't done many RMs before. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The instructions state that the "current1" entry in the movereq template is supposed to be the article page of the talk page on which you place the template:

Note that the article specified for current1 is the article for the talk page where you are holding the discussion. For example, if you were proposing a move for the article Wikipedia and other articles, current1 would be Talk:Wikipedia.

(Note: I think that's incorrect and should say, "current1 would be Wikipedia") Anyway, you put the request on Talk:Ubuntu but listed Ubunto (operating system) as "current1". [1] It should have been "current1=Ubuntu|new1=Ubunto(disambiguation)|current2=Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubunto" OR you should have put the template on to Talk:Ubuntu (operating system). In either case, current1 needed to match the name of the article associated with the talk page of where you were putting the request. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I'll make sure that doesn't happen again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu_(disambiguation)/Archive_2&oldid=1137279626"