Talk:Bash (Unix shell)/Archive 2

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as suggested. With input from only 4 editors, evenly split between support and opposition, this was kind of a tricky call. The current title isn't terrible, though, and before moving the page, I'd like to see more input from the community. If it seems worth doing, an RfC might be appropriate, or perhaps a discussion involving an appropriate WikiProject, such as the two with banners at the top of this talk page. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bash (Unix shell) → Bash (software) – Contested move. Per WP:NCDAB: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use '(mythology)' rather than '(mythological figure)'." (software) is both the most commonly-used disambiguator, and the simplest. "Unix shell" is overly specific. An argument was made that bug bash also falls under "software terms that use the word bash", but I believe that article is not ambiguously titled and probably doesn't need a separate article in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There really is no such thing as the most commonly used disambiguation term for software.  What is common is that the term usually helps tell what it is, e.g., C (programming language) or Cairo (operating system).  After long debate, consensus on the opening words of the article is that "Bash is a Unix shell".  All the rest of the Unix shells either have "shell" in the name of the article, for example, C shell, Bourne shell and Z shell, have names so unusual they can't be confused or are themselves disambiguated as Unix shells, e.g., wish (Unix shell).  Perhaps because it's awkward on the tongue with the repeated "sh" sounds (or, as thumperward argues, because bash is an acronym), no one says, "Bash shell", they just say "Bash".  So this is why we don't already have "shell" naturally in the title.  The proposed dab, "software", tells almost nothing and doesn't even dab very well:  Software developers also talk about bug bashes where the idea is to focus on fixing bugs, not adding any new features.  Which software bash are we talking about? (thumperward, I can promise bug bashes are not parties; they're more like hell weeks for the developers.) Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are about 221,000 articles which use the (software) disambiguator right now. There are only two which use (Unix shell): the other is an unreferenced, orphaned stub. Your examples are exceptions to the general rule as a) there's a much stronger consensus (59,700 examples) for (programming language) than for (Unix shell) and b) there are at least two prominent pieces of software called Cairo (cairo (graphics) being the other I can name). Bug bash, an orphan with a single reference, is not a likely destination for an editor looking up the term "bash", and so isn't really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of those 221,000 articles discoverable by Google (but certainly not in any category or list here on WP) are about truly random software products. Many are applications and others are about software widgets that defy better classification except to say it's software and if you want to know more, read the article.  For example, consider Steam (software):  "Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform ..."; who knows how to classify that except that it's some sort of software.  It's a safe bet that a lot of those 221,000 articles would never survive an AfD and might disappear with simple PRODs.  By contrast, Unix shell is a widely-understood descriptive classification with defining characteristics.  The only reason there aren't thousands of articles disambiguated by "(Unix shell)" is because there are only a finite, much smaller number of such things.  Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The specific rationale behind the move request was that it follows the advice given at WP:NCDAB. That there are not many Unix shells indicates that using (Unix shell) as a disambiguator is too precise. You may disagree with choosing simple dab terms over more precise ones, but that's what the guideline says we should do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine. I concede that "(Software)" is far more common (and from information theory, far less informative) and would allow us to obey the guidelines according to your interpretation that a dab should be as generic as possible.  Notably absent is any claim this would improve the article.  I still don't think it's a good idea.  Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - although my default position is to oppose moves unless they "fix" a real problem. In this case, it seems the vast majority of user of bash by now are not strictly "Unix" but related environments like Linux and even Cygwin. Albeit Unix shell is the article that covers them all, so it might go down the slippery slope of moving that one too. W Nowicki (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Unix shell" isn't just the title of that other article. It has a consensus definition, "A Unix shell is a command-line interpreter or shell that provides a traditional user interface for the Unix operating system and for Unix-like systems."  And it's also in the opening words of this article as well, "Bash is a Unix shell ...".  The question of whether Bash is really a Unix shell has been raised earlier on this page but compared to other questions of what should go in the opening paragraphs, this is has been remarkably uncontentious.  Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose there's many software called "Bash" 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 17 June 2011 (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.

Further discussion
User:Thumperward has contacted me about the above move request, asking that we revisit the question. I acknowledge that very few people contributed to the discussion, making it difficult to come down on one side or another. If a move is clearly appropriate, I'm happy to help with it, but I'd like to hear from a few more editors, to get a feel for what the consensus really is regarding this, and possibly other similar titles. Therefore I'm posting notes to a couple of places around the site and asking the question: Should this article be renamed? Please discuss here, and let's see what we think. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thumperward is out of line, starting with his misrepresentation of my position to you on your talk page as his justification for reopening this discussion. He's been difficult about this from beginning (see User_talk:Thumperward) and I think he needs to realize that sometimes, just because you think you're right, doesn't mean others will agree or that you will get your way.  He should accept that his proposal was considered for a week, he didn't get support and it's done.  Msnicki (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Had I taken part in the move request, I would have Supported per WP:NCDAB and the original nom. Disambiguators are to be as concise and general as possible. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a very hard decision given that one rarely refers to operating system components as "software". I note that the anonymous comment claiming that there is more software of the same name, while technically correct, appears to be referring to a non-notable HTML editor. If we rename the article, we will probably displace the company "Bash Software" as the top Google hit for its name. But that's not our problem. Using the name of a ubiquitous Unix tool in the name of a Windows-centric software company was a remarkably stupid decision. Hans Adler 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No surprise, I totally agree that people rarely refer to OS components as merely "software". I think thumperward has overstated his case.  If you look at WP:NCDAB, you'll notice that one of the examples disambiguates with "set theory"; if his interpretation was correct, why didn't the example disambiguate with "mathematics"?  There is no answer.  It's a judgment call.  I think the example supports picking a term that's actually illuminating of what the thing is, not merely the most generic and completely meaningless term possible, especially when it's not even the term most people would expect or use.  Msnicki (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing being proposed is "completely meaningless". Let's try to let it drop about Thumperward, and let other people weigh in for a while. Does that sound alright, Msnicki? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. There is no other notable meaning of union in mathematics, although there are two in programming. It can be found under union (computer science), which I find a bit misleading since (1) it's not so much computer science as programming, (2) unions in the set-theoretical sense also appear in computer science – both in its mathematical theory and in the union-find algorithm, and (3) there is also union (SQL).
 * Application of this guideline may have drifted a bit since that example was included, and anyway, the "union" disambiguation is far from optimal in its current form. Hans Adler 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that for all this rhetoric about my not being right about the guideline ("overstating my case", natch), I did post the figures above: we have 221,000 articles which use this convention right now, and while head counts during discussions are often poor indicators of consensus they're an excellent indicator when simply looking at established practice. If the example given at NCDAB is bad then let's fix NCDAB: clearly (software) is not a bad example here, as over two hundred thousand articles follow that example. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like Bash (software) here. How about Bourne-Again shell, for consistency with the other shells? Or Bash (shell)? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * oppose rename the current name is fine as that is category that naturally comes to mind. I use it on Cygwin but till think of it as a Unix shell as it is trying to be like Unix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody refers to bash as the Bourne-Again Shell. It'd be like moving GNU to GNU's Not Unix: the expansion is a joke, rather than a full name in any sense. And (shell) is nowhere near as general as (software), which (once again) is what both the guideline and the existing state of articlespace supports. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)