Talk:Xen/Archive 2015

This is an archive of past discussions about Xen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move 25 September 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consesnsus. There is no clear consensus to move this page, after an extended period of discussion. bd2412 T 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Xen → Xen Project – xen is ambiguous whereas this article represents Xen Project who's core was more specifically XCP than it was xenserver from what I understand although it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. sckirklan (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hm, I'm really not sure about that. The whole thing is commonly known simply as "Xen", which would conform to the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, while the project's website does seem to use "Xen Project" instead. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. Not because it fails the PrimaryTopic test with anything else at Xen (disambiguation) (the other things being commercial products), but because it is ambiguous with the massively more significant Zen. While I support WP:SMALLDETAILS generally, there need to be exceptions. This case of (X/Z)en is special because Zen is massively more significant, "Xen" is relatively quite obscure/specialised, and because the two are homophones meaning screen readers will read them the same, as will readers who subvolcalize. Because Zen is such a well known but poorly known subject, I want to make extra allowance for the weakly literate. Page view stats are interesting. Xen has views of ~11000 per month, but it is merely a part of Cω which is viewed ~1000 times per month. I am guessing that most page views of Xen are from readers mistaking it with Zen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think that's a valid argument for renaming the article. That's what the {{Distinguish}} hatnote is for. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.