Talk:GNU/Linux/Archive 1

Should GNU/Linux redirect to Linux, or should it be a disambiguation page? The history as I know it: -- Alan McBeth 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gnu/linux
 * GNU/Linux history, 22:26 26 December 2005
 * GNU/Linux history, 13:23, 27 December 2005
 * GNU/Linux history, 17:12, 1 November 2006
 * GNU/Linux history, 22:13, 1 November 2006
 * A discussion with Stevenj

Stevenj: Regarding your substantive concern that "GNU/Linux" and "GNU/Linux naming controversy" are not synonyms, I agree they they are not strictly synonyms. However: -- Alan McBeth 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A reader who searches for "GNU/Linux" may be searching for one of two things: the operating system, or the term. Generally Wikipedia doesn't cover terms unless they are a subject unto themselves. The term "GNU/Linux" is, and this is covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. Resolving such ambiguous searches is what a disambiguation page is for.
 * If an imperfect synonym were problematic in a disambiguation page, I think it would be more problematic in a redirect. "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" aren't perfect synonyms, so wouldn't the redirect be worse than the disambiguation in this respect?


 * I think that in the sake of logic, GNU/Linux should redirect to linux OS page. Your point about terms would apply if we would have article called GNU/Linux, which we do not have. Generally i think it is illogical if using specific term for specific things would lead to disambiguation page only because we have article that has the same word in it. Like if you want page for Panzer, you would get disambiguation page which would cover all articles which might have word 'Panzer' in it. I think the search is for these kinds of cases. If we would have, let's say a car name GNU/Linux, disambiguation page would be proper. Muhvi 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC+2)


 * Still wanted to add something about those synonyms. I don't see problem with that as long as Linux article has decent paragraph in it referring to GNU and the situation with it. Muhvi 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC+2)


 * I agree with your Panzer example. It is distinct from this case, however. I don't think GNU/Linux should refer to GNU/Linux naming controversy merely because GNU/Linux naming controversy has "GNU/Linux" in the title. Rather, because GNU/Linux naming controversy is an article about the name "GNU/Linux".
 * Imagine that Linux is titled GNU/Linux (OS) and GNU/Linux naming controversy is titled GNU/Linux (name). -- Alan McBeth 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the logic in that, but the general idea doesn't hold. The article about GNU/Linux naming controversy already has a name, and it is not GNU/Linux. If the article GNU/Linux naming controversy would be about the name, it would be proper. There is the flaw, the article isn't about the name, it is about the controversy concerning the name. Think about situation people having some scandal about them, let's say i'd be popular and in wikipedia, there would be article about me called muhvi. Then i would get caught in scandal, shouldn't we call the scandal article with its own name and not muhvi (scandal) or muhvi (topic_of_scandal). Muhvi 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * I agree with you, except your conclusion. I think the content of the article would be essentially the same if the article were about the name, and not just the controversy surrounding the name. Making the distinction between the two seems like a technicality. We should organize things according to user expectations, which is why I think your discussion below is more useful. -- Alan McBeth 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're technically correct. However, in this case the article in question could have just as well What I'm saying is that the article could have been I think this part of the discussion dwells on a technicality of whether an article about the controversy concerning the name is also about the name itself. I would say that it effectively is. What's important, however, is the reader's expectations, which I'll answer to below. -- Alan McBeth 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it should be a redirect. The Linux article is the GNU/Linux article. It is named Linux because it has a slightly wider scope and because the most commonly-used name for the Linux/GNU/X stack is "Linux". The argument that people searching for GNU/Linux are looking for GNU is bogus. Chris Cunningham 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument is that people searching for "GNU/Linux" are looking for information about the name "GNU/Linux" (found in GNU/Linux naming controversy), not that they are looking for GNU. -- Alan McBeth 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something right now? People searching GNU/Linux are searching GNU/Linux naming controversy? How can anyone know that? Shouldn't we just direct them to article which this term refers to. And as far as i know, GNU/Linux means Linux OS and Linux OS is represented by article Linux. The Linux article's first sentence starts, "Linux (also known as GNU/Linux)...". Like i said before, linux naming controversy isn't directly related and will come up in search if it is wanted, and it is even mentioned in Linux article. Any disambiguation page is unnecessary, just redirect to Linux. Muhvi 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * We don't know exactly what people are searching for when they type in "GNU/Linux". We have to make our best guess. Just imagine scenarios in which people type "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". I can imagine some in which people are looking for Linux, and some in which people are looking for the name and controversy. Can you? Which scenario is likely to be more common? If one scenario is significantly more likely than the other, GNU/Linux should redirect to the corresponding page. Otherwise, it should be a disambiguation page. -- Alan McBeth 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite obvious when people type in GNU/Linux they mean GNU/Linux which by definition means Linux OS article. On the other hand, if they use the 'search' (which should be quite obvious if they don't know for certain what the article name is) instead of 'go' they will end up having list of results which GNU/Linux naming controversy is part of. The problem with disambiguation is, that like my panzer example, the GNU/Linux should lead to article which covers the term GNU/Linux, disambiguation should only be used if there were things of identical name or too easily confused. Panzer should not go to disambiguation page which would list panzer, panzerfaust, panzerschreck and so on. because they aren't identical nor easily confused. With same logic, GNU/Linux should lead to Linux, not disambiguation page. While the general name of linux systems might be source of controversy, i think no one denies that GNU/Linux as term means Linux OS which is covered by Linux article not the naming controversy. At least i haven't ever seen the controversy called only as 'GNU/Linux'. Muhvi 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * The panzer argument doesn't grapple with the idea that "GNU/Linux" the name and GNU/Linux the referent are both topics addressed on Wikipedia. Also, I don't agree that it's obvious that those who type in "GNU/Linux" mean the referent rather than the name. On the contrary, I think most people looking for the referent would simply type "Linux", and those typing in "GNU/Linux" instead are likely interested in the name. -- Alan McBeth 00:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "The panzer argument doesn't grapple with the idea that "GNU/Linux" the name and GNU/Linux the referent are both topics addressed on Wikipedia." <-- My point addresses problem with that sentence, we don't have article that covers GNU/Linux name, we have article which covers controversy about the name. It is not the same thing. Go and see what kind of article Panzer is. If we would have similar article about GNU/Linux as a name/term like we have with panzer, i'd agree with you. But we do not have such article, nor can i say that GNU/Linux naming controversy merits such in comparison. In the other hand, the term is covered, and it is covered in article Linux and thus, it should redirect there, not to a disambiguation page. Think situation where we would have controversy about some person's name. Do you think it would be proper to lead people to disambiguation page about the person's name controversy when someone uses one name or another and presses go? I think the search option covers the naming controversy well enough that people don't miss it, and i think it is not right that specific term would lead to disambiguation page, when there is no articles with same name. Muhvi 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * Do you think that the content of GNU/Linux naming controversy would be significantly different if the article title were GNU/Linux (name)? -- Alan McBeth 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be, if it were named so. GNU/Linux naming controversy article doesn't have merits for such article name, because it is about the controversy, not about the name. Thus that article doesn't merit the disambiguation page nor the article name GNU/Linux (name). Muhvi 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC+2)

I'll change it back to the disambiguation pending further discussion. I never found the consensus Stevenj was referring to. -- Alan McBeth 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing this back to a redirect
There has been no support for keeping this as a disambig page. Please do not change this back without first discussing it on the Linux or controversy talk pages. Chris Cunningham 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been support. See Dustin's comment on Talk:Linux. I'll undo your reversion since you did it under a mistaken impression. Please consider participating in the discussion. -- Alan McBeth 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already participated in the previous discussion on Talk:Linux. Dustin's "I'm for it" comment could be taken to be support for either position. I'm not interested in having an eternal discussion on this, and yours is a minority position so the onus isn't on the majority to convince you. Consensus still points to it being a redirect, so back it goes for now. Chris Cunningham 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dustin's support is unequivocal. However, I am against. So that makes it "no consensus", i.e. no change. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one has provided a consensus to trump the one on Talk:Gnu/linux. Following the "no consensus, no change" principle, GNU/Linux should be a disambiguation page (see the top of this talk page for the history summary). I'll revert. If you find a better consensus, please link to it here and revert back. -- Alan McBeth 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're arguing for consensus based on an orphaned talk page. This is a bad faith revert. When I can be bothered I'll revert this and request arbitration. Chris Cunningham 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk page is not orphaned. Chris, I strongly advise that you get your facts straight before you take this to ArbCom. I'd also like to make it clear, lest my previous sentence be taken out of context, that I do not support you taking this to ArbCom. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean mediation Chris. Arbcom won't take a case where dispute resolution hasn't already been tried. pschemp | talk 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, there is an operating system, right? It is known by two names, right? The majority of people call it one name, yet some call it another, right? I oppose for that other name to be a disambiguation page. If you look through Linux talk pages, they often even address the topic of changing the name of the article to GNU/Linux. Even Linus admitted he used GCC and other GNU tools. While I would disagree with changing the name of the Linux article itself, I also disagree with making that term anything else than a redirect. It would confuse users. Maybe we should make it a redirect and at the top of the Linux page put up a note saying, "For information about the GNU/Linux naming controversy, please go to GNU/Linux naming controversy." This does the opposite of what we want to do. We are not clarifying. We are complicating and we are confusing users. This disambiguation page goes against what Wikipedia is about (I could theoretically argue :-)) and should become a redirect.

Freedom to share 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How would a disambiguation page confuse users? -- Alan McBeth 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People are using specific term for specific thing and they are directed to disambiguation page. That just isn't right, disambiguation pages rule when there are things or people with same name. Making disambiguation page because there is GNU/Linux article about the OS and there is article about the controversy surrounding the name of some of those systems is just stretching it too far. And you could even point out that Linux naming controversy leads to article GNU/Linux naming controversy, so why don't we have disambiguation page when people are using 'linux' as a go word. Muhvi 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * Because the proportion of people going to "Linux" to find information about the name is small. -- Alan McBeth 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And people going to "GNU/Linux" are looking info about the name? How can you know that? If i didn't know the specific article name i'd use search and even then if one is looking the article about naming controversy, what kind of logic would lead them to use GNU/Linux with go? And usually in wikipedia, disambiguation page isn't used in these kind of cases. Like if we have xxxx scandal, if you type xxxx you won't go to disambiguation page which then have links to both xxxx and xxxx scandal, but you go to xxxx article which then has, if it is deemed important enough, the xxxx scandal article link first thing in the article. Check the example from Bofors. This way of doing things is used usually, not disambiguation pages. You may think of this like the two terms having value in terms of their importance, and the more important wins. In this case it is GNU/Linux referring to Linux article. I think that people using GNU/Linux are more often going for Linux article, and Linux article in general has much bigger value than article about the controversy of system name. furthermore, you could check the Linux article, and see how different Linux articles are handled, no disambiguation page, but links on top of the article. And in my opinion Linux and Linux (kernel) are much closer match than GNU/Linux and GNU/Linux naming controversy. Muhvi 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC+2)
 * This should be changed to a redirect. "GNU/Linux redirects here; for the controversy, see GNU/Linux controversy". Problem solved. (Was there even a problem to begin with?) - Sikon 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'll make it a redirect again.  Note that many people interested in this discussion probably are being left out because they only have "Linux" on their watchlist, not this article (because it has been a redirect for so long).  This happened to me. Gronky 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is going to remain an disambiguation page...
...then links in articles to GNU/Linux should at least be pipe-linked to Linux. Dylan Lake (t·c· ε ) 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert of the redirect
I just changed the article back to a disambiguation page. Please, don't make it a redirect without adding an explicit note at the top of the Linux article. Better yet, move Linux to GNU/Linux and make Linux a disambiguation page (the OS and the kernel). An encyclopedia should use the proper name, not the popular name. 80.233.255.7 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "An encyclopedia should use the proper name" <- Only problem being that most of the people tend to disagree with your notion of proper. Why didn't you just add the link on top of linux? Muhvi 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC+2)


 * I think GNU/Linux should be the main operating system page, Linux (kernel) should be about the kernel, GNU/Linux naming controversy should remain as is, and in fact Linux should be a disambiguation page that points to all three, saying this: Linux either refers to GNU/Linux the operating system, also known as just Linux, or Linux the kernel. For more information on this disambiguation, you can read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy.  --Chris Pickett 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just discovered a 5th page, Linux (disambiguation). In opinion, this should be moved to Linux.  Please discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation).  --Chris Pickett 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because that's not what I want to happen. If it's going to, though, someone else will have to do it.  80.233.255.7 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * GNU/Linux naming controversy has an entry in Linux (disambiguation), which is toplinked from Linux. The operating system, which is known by many names but most commonly as Linux, is the primary topic for both Linux and GNU/Linux. There is no reason to expect that people will search for "GNU/Linux" looking for the controversy when its clear that even the people who use "GNU/Linux" are referring to the operating system which Wikipedia calls Linux. I'm going to be bold and put the redirect back. –  Anþony  talk  10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My point was mostly "let's not have GNU/Linux as a redirect" and not "let's have GNU/Linux be a disambiguation page linking to the controversy article". A link to the controversy article in Linux (disambiguation) is useless at best.  80.233.255.7 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And my point was also, "FFS, don't redirect without putting a HUGE disclaimer at the top of the Linux article". Thank you.  80.233.255.7 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Nothing about this situation warrants a special disclaimer of any sort, let alone a HUGE one. –  Anþony  talk  08:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Nothing about this situation [...]." How else would you explain that the name of the operating system I and hundreds of other people use redirects to some "Linux"?  Or are you just ignorant?  :P  80.233.255.7 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Please discuss the merge at Talk:Linux (disambiguation). --Chris Pickett 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)