Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)/Archive 3

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zkstewart93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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.
 * No consensusfor the proposed move. Ruslik_ Zero 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system) → Ubuntu — The Ubuntu operating system (OS) is clearly the primary topic of all "Ubuntu" articles, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The OS receives 85.2% of "Ubuntu" article traffic, and makes up 81% of the Wikilinks. Relisted in view of proposed guideline changes, see below. However the prospect of consensus still seems slim. Andrewa (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ubuntu → Ubuntu (disambiguation)

Comment by User:Jrtayloriv

 * Support, as nom.
 * Here are the article traffic statistics for the different Ubuntu articles:
 * {|class="wikitable"

!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)
 * 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)


 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says very clearly that
 * "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."
 * This says very clearly that the Ubuntu operating system is the primary topic. I suggest that we move Ubuntu --> Ubuntu (disambiguation) and Ubuntu (operating system) --> Ubuntu, with a disambiguation link at the top of Ubuntu (the OS) that points to both the philosophy and the disambiguation page.
 * -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Ubuntu, and Talk:Ubuntu (operating system), consensus isn't a vote count. Prodego  talk  00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, per WP:NOTVOTE. --Falcorian (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Yworo

 * Oppose, Ubuntu as the name of a Linux OS is a borrowed term and the philosophy is the primary meaning. Despite the wishful-thinking process at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, what topic is primary is not really a matter of hit or vote counts. Some uses are clearly derived uses, making them non-primary, regardless of their popularity. I propose that Ubuntu (philosophy) be moved to Ubuntu, with the disambiguation page at Ubuntu (disambiguation). A hatnote mentioning both the OS and the dab page could then be added to the top of the main Ubuntu page about the philosophy. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Four questions:
 * Is there any basis in policy for what you are suggesting? (
 * Could you elaborate on why it is a good idea to intentionally send the large majority of readers to the wrong page (i.e. a page that we know they are not looking for)?
 * Could you elaborate on why we should not send the large majority of readers directly to the page they are looking for?
 * Can you explain what you mean by "wishful thinking at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", and why we should ignore it (I know that WP:IAR exists, but you generally have to provide a good reason to ignore policy)?
 * -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I gave reasons at length at the last move discussion. This is my educated opinion, I'm not intending to debate it with you, but am rather simply providing it as a reason for opposing a move which consensus has previously rejected for a variety of reasons. These are my specific reasons for rejecting that proposal. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. If you do not care to explain what your reasoning is, or to discuss them with other editors, then your !vote is meaningless. Vaguely pointing to a previous move discussion is not an answer. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He has linked to his reasons, stop lying about him. Ranting on about "PRIMARYTOPIC" without actually establishing that you have got a primary topic is not a move rationale, just noise. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he has linked to a 12,000+ word discussion, where I am not seeing answers to the questions I've asked here. And I'm not "ranting on about PRIMARYTOPIC". I've quoted a very short and specific section of it that clearly implies that the OS is the primary topic, and have received no direct response about that, other than that we should ignore the policy because they are "continually changing standards". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm aware this is not a vote. I've given clear and detailed reasons based on the linguistic determination of which is the primary usage, which is a better argument than the continually changing standards at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You don't have to act so offended that other people like myself may not agree with you for reasons which are just as valid as yours. Nor is it civil to pretend I didn't give a reasoned arguments when I did. To put it bluntly, I will not allow you to attempt to reframe my argument in your terms. I've presented it in my terms, which are valid ones. Yworo (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given clear and detailed reasons based on the linguistic determination -- I'm aware of this, and in response to that, I asked you if there was any basis in policy for your argument based on linguistic determination.
 * ...which is a better argument than the continually changing standards at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- All policies on Wikipedia are continually changing. That doesn't mean that I can go insert content from my wordpress blog because WP:RS is continually changing.
 *  Nor is it civil to pretend I didn't give a reasoned arguments when I did. -- Pointing me to a 12000+ word discussion is not "reasoned arguments". Perhaps you could point out which part of that conversation specifically answers my questions, because I'm not seeing it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not intending to argue this with you. It's normal for the proposer to make their proposal and then allow others to give their responses and opinions. Attempting to start an argument with everyone that disagrees with you is not the usual form and may be considered disruptive to the discussion if pursued with every respondent. It shows being a bit over-involved in attempting to sway a matter that is ultimately up to community consensus, not you. Yworo (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to argue with me, I'm asking you to discuss it with me. This is called a requested move discussion, not a requested move poll. I'm not preventing anyone from giving their opinions, so please don't imply that I am. What I am doing is asking people to discuss the reasoning for their opinions. This is not disruptive, it's discussion.
 * Also, considering your long-term and intense involvement with this subject, I hardly think it's apt for you to be preaching to me about "over-involvement".
 * All I'm asking you is to explain the reasoning behind your vote, and to answer some very simple questions. And all I've received in return is vague accusations of incivility and disruption, and exasperated refusals to "argue with me about this". I'd rather you address the issues. Could you please answer the 4 questions above, so that I can understand where you are coming from? I don't think it's too much to ask, especially considering that I've responded to everything you've said (correct me if there's something I've missed). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is completely clear: Ubuntu clearly has a primary meaning. It's a cultural meaning and the word was much later borrowed for a product. In such a clear case, I don't believe that using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is just a guideline, not a policy, trumps common sense. In this case, countering systemic bias is also an issue. Your questions all assume your own point of view. They are meaningless for me, I'm not interested in reframing my argument as for or against or even related to your argument, which to me is just rule-book thumping. Yworo (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sorry this is so long, but I feel like we're going around in circles and that this is going to take up a lot more time if we don't break out of it, and I want to make sure that I'm not leaving anything out that causes a misunderstanding. If it's not clear what I'm saying after this, and if you're not willing to discuss things after this, then I can't think of anything more that I could really say.)
 * My reasoning is completely clear: Ubuntu clearly has a primary meaning. It's a cultural meaning... -- I understand that this is your position; it was clear that you believe this from your initial post regarding linguistic determination. What I am saying is, (1) Is there any basis in policy for this?, and (2)/(3) Why should we not send the very large majority of our readers directly to the page they're looking for? Why should we knowingly send them directly to a page they are not looking for? ... I'm not trying to "rule-book thump" at you as you stated. I'm simply saying that the guidelines we have are developed by the community, and represent community-wide consensus, not just that of a narrow clique of users on the Ubuntu disambiguation talk page. If you are going to ignore these community-developed guidelines, you have to provide good reason for doing so. We are determining the primary topic out of a set of articles. The guideline that tells us how to determine the primary topic out of a set of articles, when a group of editors can't agree based on subjective arguments, is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The immensely larger number of links and traffic to the operating system article are considered valid evidence of primacy, but I don't see anything about "cultural importance". That seems like it would be awfully hard to determine objectively, but maybe there is a way to do so that I'm missing. But if you could suggest it, I would like to see it. It's not in WP:PRIMARY, though. So that's why I want to know if you have some other policy or editing guideline that you can share with me that says that we should ignore the type of evidence requested in primary topic, and try to determine the "cultural importance" without reference to links, traffic, and improving the encyclopedia for our readers.
 * In such a clear case, I don't believe that using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is just a guideline, not a policy, trumps common sense. -- It's not a clear case, otherwise it wouldn't be causing a dispute that has lasted for months. Claiming that your position is "common sense", while a clear argument based on a community-developed editing guideline is irrelevant is exactly the type of thing that WP:IDONTLIKEIT discusses. You can't just say "let's ignore guidelines because it's common sense." You have to give a good reason why to ignore WP:PRIMARY, or explain to me how my position is not supported by it, or show me how it's trumped by another more important policy or guideline.
 * In this case, countering systemic bias is also an issue. -- Here is one place where I wholeheartedly agree with you. Systemic bias is very much an issue here. However you and I have obviously made very different subjective judgments about which of these topics is biased against and which of these is of greater "cultural importance". I think that if you look at the types of sources used on Wikipedia, and the class of people that tend to edit Wikipedia you are going to have a much wider range of people trying to publish their mass-manufactured, materialistic, Eurocentric worldview, and historical mythology, and call it (and believe it to be) "objective". Apolitical, feel-good philosophies like Ubuntu (philosophy) are not the types of things that are left out of corporate mass media, publishing houses, and university board meetings. You can not only fit these "blessed-are-the-meek, turn-the-other cheek" concepts in with a violent materialist system, but they actually help buttress such a system. That's why the State Department is promoting Ubuntu Diplomacy, and not promoting anti-consumerism and political decentralization. Not only do I think that the Ubuntu philsosophy is not systemically biased against, but I think that the cultural importance of the OS is greater as well. Making computers available to people without them having to spend a year's wages (if you're in a poor country) for software, is of very high importance socially and ethically. I think that a worldwide, multicultural, community-oriented, non-profit, massively complex engineering collective is of extreme cultural importance and serves as a major "threat of a good example". I think it has great social implications. The fact that it is a significant threat to one of the wealthiest men in the world (and at times, he's the wealthiest) is of major social importance. .......... But you see the problem here? I could go on and on and on with this, but that would be non-productive, because we'd just get sucked into an endless political debate when we're trying to discuss whether or not we should rename a Wikipedia article. People have written books on this sort of thing, so I don't think we should mimic that here. I'm not just blowing your argument about cultural importance off, or ignoring it altogether. I just don't agree with it, for reasons I've briefly sketched here, and don't think it's going to lead anywhere. When editors don't agree about things like this, due to massively different worldviews, guidelines are there to help us decide what to do, and we need very good reasons to ignore those, because they represent the consensus of the community. — Jrtayloriv — (continues after insertion below.)
 * (break) -- I think that the systemic bias exhibited here is not in either of the articles' content to the topics, but rather in the massive amount of unequal weight that each topic has, given their relevance to an average person. But, it depends if you're writing wikipedia for a theoretical average human being, or rather for an average wikipedia user. I will not begin to disagree that the OS is far more relevant to the average user - that much is clear.--HiltonLange (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in reframing my argument as for or against or even related to your argument, which to me is just rule-book thumping. -- As I explained above, I am not just "rulebook thumping". Two of four -- half -- of my questions about your position were not related to policy at all -- they were about how we can best serve the community we are writing this encyclopedia for. I've completely related what I've been saying to your argument, and have tried to frame it around your specific concerns. This needs to be two ways in a healthy discussion. I have specifically responded to just about every single statement that you've made (again, please correct me if I have missed something). You are stonewalling and saying that you don't want to argue with me or say anything related to my argument. That type of argument is discussed in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm asking that you either acknowledge that what I've said is correct, or tell me why it's not, rather than saying, essentially, "I don't like it and don't feel like talking to you about it." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page is not the wrong page, as you state above, it's just a page that says "you must select one of a number of similar choices". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong page if they know specifically what they are looking for (the OS), and think that's where they are going, but get forced to go through the disambiguation page anyway. That's why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists, rather than just disambiguating every single word that has multiple uses. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question then is how they arrived at this "wrong" page.
 * If they use the Search feature, by the time they've typed "ubuntu" it displays both the OS and the philosophy and they may choose those. If they type it into a search engine; both Google and Bing first direct to the OS' home page and then after several other choices would offer the disambiguation article. Google then lists the OS article while Bing does not. However that may just be another good reason not to use Bing ;). How else would one come to the various articles? Please elaborate.
 * Assuming they have Javascript enabled (95+% of people do), notice the popups (probably a majority of users), and know to click on one of them (still probably a majority), then yes, they could choose the desired page from the popup. On the other hand, if they type faster than 60wpm and in ~1 second type "Ubuntu"-ENTER, then they get sent to the wrong page.
 * Bing shows Ubuntu (operating system) as the second link when I search for it, before the DAB page. (Maybe I misread what you were saying though, or perhaps you got different results based on geo-location). But they do both also point to the DAB page as you said. One thing that neither of them do, however, is point to the any of the other uses except for the OS.
 * Anyhow, I'll reiterate that even if they can select from the popups in the search box, you could say the same for every term with multiple uses and therefore disambiguate every page. But we don't do that for pages with a primary topic elsewhere, and I don't think that we need to make an exception here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:DuncanHill

 * Oppose I believe that the current page placements (with both the computer system and the philosophy dismbiguated from Ubuntu) is the best solution. It does not seek to value usage in one culture over usage in another. There have been long debates previously which have repeatedly failed to achieve any consensus about what is the "primary topic", and I find this very suggestive that there may not in fact be a "primary topic". From the point of view of editing and maintenance, the current arrangement makes it easy to find and fix misdirected links, while the proposed move would make it much harder. I see no loss of utility to the reader from the current arrangement. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how adhering to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and using a disambiguation link is "valuing usage in one culture over another"? Also, as far as maintenance, the current situation creates more misdirected links, as Prodego pointed out, because most people who link to Ubuntu think it is going to the OS. Considering that there are only 195 pages that link to the philsophy (just a tad more than to the beverage, and about 10X less than the OS), it's hardly a maintenance nightmare, and is going to be a very rare event that someone links to the OS, while intending the philosophy. Also, this argument is really null because this could be applied to ANY set of pages with a primary topic, but is only being applied here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you have established a primary topic, and I do not see one established in any of the previous discussion on the talk pages of all three pages. When I dabbed the links to Ubuntu I found very few directed to the dab page from article space, which suggests strongly that most editors are coping well with the current arrangement. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can say that you don't think I've established a primary topic. I'll say it again, just to be clear.
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which explains how to determine the primary topic) says the following: "(if) 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... then it is called the primary topic for that term.". The operating system receives 85.2% of the traffic. All of the other uses combined receive 14.8%. I don't see how this isn't clearly stating that this is the primary topic. I can understand (but don't agree) if you're trying to say that you don't feel that Ubuntu should point to the primary topic (the OS), but I don't see how you can say that the OS isn't the primary topic, given this information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Born2cycle

 * Strong support. I've seen some pretty persuasive arguments regarding primary topic, but what Jrtayloriv has presented here is simply impeccable.    The oppose arguments, in contrast, strike me as being thinly veiled rationalizations for objections of the just don't like it variety, and, in fact, are even distressing in terms of how much of a lack of understanding about primary topic purpose and determination they reveal. This use is not "primary" because it is derived from the philosophy?   That is not the meaning of "primary topic" in Wikipedia.  The origin or derivation of a name is irrelevant when determining primary topic.  The guideline is quite clear that the only relevant criteria in primary topic determination is the likelihood of each topic being the one that is sought by someone entering "Ubuntu" when searching. Now, in some cases reasonable people can and do disagree about what the evidence shows with regard to these likelihoods, and when that occurs, yes, that's a good indication that there is no primary topic.  But there is no disagreement about that here.  And when the evidence is clear on this point, and the only objections are based on unconventional (for WP) definitions of what constitutes "primary topic", that's not an indicator of a lack of primary topic at all. In this case the page view counts clearly and indisputably show that the operating system is by far the one most likely being sought by any person entering "Ubuntu" in the search box.  The idea, folks, is simple: when someone enters "Ubuntu" in the search box and clicks on "Go", we want to configure article titles such that readers are more likely than not to go directly to the page they seek.  Giving name derivation even an iota of consideration is not at all helpful in primary topic determination. Yworo's assertion, "what topic is primary is not really a matter of hit or vote counts. Some uses are clearly derived uses, making them non-primary, regardless of their popularity", is completely unsupported. It has nothing to do with how or why we choose titles at Wikipedia.  Yworo's refusal to address Jrtayloriv's pointed questions about this assertion clearly shows that it's a feeble I just don't like it argument. DuncanHill's position that he doesn't believe primary topic has been established is, frankly, incredible.  If primary topic is not established here, then even the city of Paris cannot claim primary topic (after all, its name is derived from the Parisii people - so by the reasoning of those objecting to this move, the Parisii are the primary topic for "Paris", and Paris should redirect to Parisii (Gaul)).  Of course that reasoning is absurd, applied in either case. These JDLI arguments in opposition "are sufficiently feeble that they should be given no weight whatsoever."  Arguments that reveal such a blatant disregard for what our policies and guidelines are obviously meant to mean deserve nothing other than disregard themselves, and Jrtayloriv and I have unfortunately already given them far more than that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Falcorian

 * Support per policy as stated in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, specifically "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." By this criteria the OS should be at Ubuntu. --Falcorian (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:AjaxSmack

 * Oppose per WP:BIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory of search engine results and the OS, a derivative of Ubuntu (philosophy), is an important but not primary topic.  —   AjaxSmack   05:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your references to WP:BIAS and WP:NOT, along with the declaration that "Wikipedia is not a directory of search engine results", imply a rejection of the wording at primary topic. To conclude that the OS is not the primary topic, you must be defining "primary topic" for yourself in some way that is not reflected at primary topic. You allude to what that definition might be by implying that the OS being a "derivative" of the philosophy is somehow relevant to it not being the "primary topic", but that of course is not a complete definition. Here's the problem.  We can all work from the same definition -- the one at primary topic -- or we can use our own personal vague definition, about which we reveal only a smidgen sufficient to establish a rationalization for what we just like as is most advantageous at each such discussion, which is what it seems like you and everyone else who declares without explanation that the clearly more likely to be sought topic is not the primary topic.  I suggest that that argument is exactly the kind that WP:JDLI says "are sufficiently feeble that they should be given no weight whatsoever." --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I read this is in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: There are "no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include:..." (my emphasis).  —   AjaxSmack   07:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * are not determining factors -- I understand that. Which is why I have been suggesting that the disparity in incoming links and traffic between the two articles are "evidence", rather than "determining factors". As I said, I think that issues of systemic bias are also important. I do think that people need to take other guidelines in account here besides just WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But I'm asking them to suggest something that is a community backed guideline supporting it, rather than personal opinion, since they are essentially asking everyone to ignore the current community consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If that is the case, they need to either cite some guidelines/policies that outweigh/override what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, or not do so, and go and change the policy by starting an RFC at WP:Disambiguation. "I don't like it, and I don't want to talk about it." is simply not a valid justification for overriding a community guideline.   -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:IDONTLIKEIT (the text of which incidentally relates mostly to deletion debates) or "I don't like it, and I don't want to talk about it" as you express it is not a great approach to these discussions. However, weighing of the issues is exactly what "decisions are made by discussion between editors" means and it's what's happening here.  (I'm certainly "talking about it".)  There is no prohibition of the use of discernment or other means than statistical analysis to arrive at a consensus.   —   AjaxSmack   09:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "it" we're supposed to be discussing is determining the relative likelihoods of readers searching for the operating system vs. the philosophy. Frankly, you are talking around that rather than about it.  In fact, you've said nothing about it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "it" I'm talking about is the proper title of the disambiguation page as the topic this discussion was originally presented. While "determining the relative likelihood..." is part of my opinion, it is not the only factor I considered.  —   AjaxSmack   09:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "it" you're talking about is the proper title of the dab page? I thought the "it" we are talking about is whether the article about the Ubuntu operating system is the primary topic for "Ubuntu" and should therefore be moved to Ubuntu. The "proper title" of the dab page is either "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu (disambiguation)" depending on whether we decide there is a primary topic for "Ubuntu" or not. What other factors did you consider besides "determining the relative likelihood..." in deciding whether the article about the Ubuntu operating system is the primary topic for "Ubuntu", how much weight did you give them relative to "determining the relative likelihood...", and why? Also, you never responded to my post below. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @AjaxSmack -- Nobody is saying that we should prohibit anything other than statistical analysis. That is a straw man argument. In addition to the traffic/link statistics, it is also important for us to consider how to best serve our readers. One of the things we can do, instead of trying to force them to read about something they're not interested in, is to show them a little respect by trusting their ability to choose what they want to read. If they generally want to view the OS (which they clearly do), we should let them get to it immediately. I don't see how it is justifiable to make this more difficult, so that you can inform the ignorant 85% about the philosophy. To reiterate, nobody is claiming that article traffic statistics are an absolute determinant. But they hold weight because they help indicate what readers want to read. What matters is determining what the readers expect to find at a certain place, and making sure it's there for the large majority of readers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I trusted readers to choose what they want to read, I wouldn't have thousands of words and two or three pictures of ancient sculptures at the porn article. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory, a compilation of usage frequencies, a search engine, or a snapshot of what's hip with American male computer users in January 2011.  —   AjaxSmack   09:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I trusted readers to choose what they want to read, I wouldn't have thousands of words and two or three pictures of ancient sculptures at the porn article.-- I agree with you that the article pornography is in despicable shape, because it is poorly organized and written, incomplete, and lacking in comprehensive coverage (both visual and textual) of pornography. For instance, where are the pictures of violent porn or of people eating shit? Those types of things should be mentioned too, along with images, and modern scholarship on the social causes/effects of this as well. Anyhow, I'm not implying that you should fill pornography with nothing but porn (as you seem to be insinuating), but rather that a comprehensive and accurate article on pornography will likely display a lot of porn (as well as a lot of academic literature). ... But anyhow, your analogy is talking about the contents of a particular article, rather than on choosing which article to send readers to. The former is an issue of accuracy and completeness. The latter is about trying to directly answer whatever questions our readers are asking. We're talking about the latter situation right now. And I'm saying we should trust them to determine what they are trying to look up, and give them the best possible information on it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  This is an encyclopedia, not a directory, a compilation of usage frequencies, a search engine, or a snapshot of what's hip with American male computer users in January 2011. -- I'm aware of that. And I think that the encyclopedia article on the operating system is what most people want to read. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, this confirms that what we're supposed to be trying to determine is how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term, and traffic tools are supposed to help us. Second, the comment about "are not determining factors" can only mean they're not absolute determining factors (any other interpretation is nonsensical because a tool that can "help to support the determination" is a determining factor -- a factor that helps determine -- by definition, per any non-absolute interpretation of "determining factor"). In other words, just because the traffic statistics indicates some topic is primary doesn't necessarily mean it is, but, you do need to have some good reason to explain the stats and why you think some other topic is more likely to be the one being sought by readers entering that term despite what the stats apparently indicate.  For example, they might be getting to that article by searching with some other term that redirects to that article - but I have not seen any such alternative explanation for the statistics in this discussion. Are you arguing that despite the page statistics, the operating system is not much more likely to be sought by readers entering "Ubuntu" than is the philosophy?  If so, what supports that position?  If not, what are you arguing?  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:HiltonLange

 * Support, reluctantly. I don't like that the current policy at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC promotes convenience over context. But, it is the community agreed upon guideline, and it is clear in this case. The OS is far more likely to be the intended topic of the search, and that's the only determining factor the guideline suggests using. I think that this reinforces the massive prevalence of technical topic systemic bias that Wikipedia has and diminishes its value as an encyclopedia, but this is not the place to debate how wikipedia works. Disagree with the guideline and care enough to change it? Talk about it on the guideline's talk page, not here. --HiltonLange (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that traffic tools are "not determining factors". —   AjaxSmack   07:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Born2cycle and I have pointed out above, they are used as a type of evidence that helps us make a determination. Nobody has claimed that they are absolute determinants, but simply that they hold infinitely more weight than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that contradicts a community-developed guideline. If people don't like it, they need to go start an RFC at WP:Disambiguation to change the guideline. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose in light of my reasons stated above, and the improvements being made to the policy at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --HiltonLange (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Hesperian

 * Oppose. I think that, deep down, most people agree that PRIMARYTOPIC should not simply be a popularity contest. If Wikipedia had been around in 1997, page views for Titanic (1997 film) would have smashed page views for RMS Titanic, but even then, the ship was the primary topic, right? Generally speaking, something does not become a primary topic simply because it is temporarily trendy. We are an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly heard people try to justify their gut by putting forward spurious arguments that one usage is a derivative usage of the other, and that only non-derivative usages should be accepted as primary. This would lead to us recognising that Titanic is the adjectival form of Titan (mythology), and redirecting there. So much for that argument. People also try to argue that the most encylopedic topic should be primary, but any attempt to define encyclopedic in this context is circular. After much reflection, I've come to the conclusion that PRIMARYTOPIC should be assessed against usage in reliable sources. The film can become the primary topic, but only if it becomes of such great scholarly interest that discussion of it in reliable sources swamps discussion of the ship. With regards to this discussion, a Google Scholar search suggests to me that usage of Ubuntu in reliable sources is overwhelmingly that of the philosophy. I am persuaded that the philosophy is the primary topic here. Hesperian 06:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that "PRIMARYTOPIC should not simply be a popularity contest", but only to the degree that "something does not become a primary topic simply because it is temporarily trendy". The problem with the Titanic analogy is that both uses are household names - no use of Ubuntu is a household name. It is because everyone knew that the film was named after the ship that the ship movie did not become the primary topic... because no matter how popular the movie, no one would expect to find anything other than ship when searching for "Titanic" - certainly there would be no surprise at ending up at the ship.  The reason that Titan (mythology) is not the primary topic for Titanic is because it's unlikely to be the topic being sought when someone enters "Titanic" in the search box, and that's the same reason the philosophy is not the primary topic for "Ubuntu". At least you, unlike the others objecting, indicate the definition of primary topic you're using: "usage in reliable sources" (which you seem to measure by google scholar results). I don't know of any reason to believe that that is the definition of primary topic supported by consensus, and I'm sure we could both come up with plenty of examples indicating it's not.  Unless you're willing to apply this thinking to every article in WP, I suggest you're just cherry-picking a convenient argument for this particular case.   And, really, if you are going to use it, you should try to get the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline updated accordingly. But as of right now, the wording and spirit are clear, the point of primarytopic is to reduce the number of clicks readers have to make to reach the article they are seeking.  I don't see how looking at google scholar search results to decide which topic is primary helps us with that, unless the only readers you're concerned are, well, scholars dealing with scholarly works, which I suggest is only a tiny fraction of those that use Wikipedia. The page view counts are clear - people searching for "Ubuntu" in Wikipedia are much, much more likely to be looking for the Operating System than anything else including the philosophy.  How sending all of them to an article about the philosophy or a dab page never-the-less makes the encyclopedia better is beyond me.   --Born2cycle (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... the ship is the primary topic. Titanic is a redirect, not a disambiguation page. Hesperian 07:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I knew that and mistyped. Fixed (the sentence did not make sense before).  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am willing to apply this thinking to every article in WP. If a term can be used for Topic A or Topic B, and reliable sources overwhelmingly use the term for Topic A, but people are out there using the term to search for Topic B, that means that either (a) reliable sources don't rate Topic B as something worth talking about, even if the average Joe does; or (b) reliable sources don't consider the term should be used for Topic B, even if the average Joe does. I would like to see you take up your challenge "I'm sure we could both come up with plenty of examples indicating it's not... the definition of primary topic supported by consensus." You may be right, but I'm certainly not convinced of it. I think that people have a gut feeling that trite topics should not displace more substantial topics as primary; they just don't realise that "usage in reliable sources" will take them where they want to go. Hesperian 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hesperian -- I think that you've raised an important issue regarding popularity amongst which type of sources. Myself and Yworo both seem to agree that systemic bias is a major issue as well. Quite a few people clearly have a problem with the guidelines, because they have fairly explicitly stated so, and are refusing to accept anything determined by the most basic application of it. I think this means that this is only going to be resolved by a discussion that fixes the guidelines first. We should start an RFC concerning the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation (since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC points to a subsection from WP:DAB). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this may in fact be the thing to do, as several arguments made about the move only really apply if Disambiguation is changed. --Falcorian (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, I'll have to get back to you on those examples when I get a chance. As to the larger issue which is not specific to just this move, I've started a discussion about it at WT:D.  My response is essentially there.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, your strategy of comparing which term is most common in reliable sources is interesting and doesn't sound unreasonable, but Google Scholar is absolutely not a representative cross section of reliable sources. It essentially only includes scholarly work, and therefore skewed toward subjects that are covered by scholarly work more than by other kinds of reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC history - years of consensus support for likelihood of search idea
This might be relevant to the discussion above... if you go back to early 2006 it's clear that the origin of the primary topic concept was about making life easier for editors:

However, by the end of 2006 (I didn't take the time to find the exact edit in 2006 that added this) the idea about it being based on likelihood of being sought is already incorporated:

So the idea that primary topic is based on likelihood of being the one sought within WP is over three years old, has survived through thousands of edits to that guideline, and has been cited and consistently relied on in countless WP:RM decisions like this one. My point is we're bucking a lot of consensus if we interpret it differently here. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Fletcher
Support The move makes sense following the guideline and will make it easier for readers and editors. It's wrong to interpret the discussion as placing greater cultural significance or value on one usage over the other. The need for a primary topic is simply a technical consequence of the fact that some topics share the same name, but each Wikipedia article must be unique. Fletcher (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the move make anything easier for editors? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same way that linking directly to the primary topic makes things easier elsewhere: It sends 85% of the readers directly to what they're looking for (the OS), and has a disambiguation link at the top for the 15% that want one of the other pages. It decreases the number of ambiguous links, since most people are linking to the OS, thus reducing maintenance for editors. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a good explanation. The editor's job is to check, or verify, links and if the link is to this disambiguation page, then they need to change it before saving it. Sounds like it's just an effort to save work for lazy editors not all editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see how it saves work for editors, because, as Walter notes, editors have to do the work regardless. This is the same reason pre-emptive disambiguation does not help editors who are doing their work properly, though it does save work for lazy editors who don't want do the work (and results in redlinks, missing redirects, missing links on dab pages and improper consideration of all potential uses in primary topic discussions), but I digress. Anyway, primary topic is about getting readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks, and this move would improve WP in that regard.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and stand corrected. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:AgadaUrbanit
Support It appears per provided statistics that Ubuntu Linux distribution is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Suggested moves (a) Ubuntu (operating system) → Ubuntu and (b) Ubuntu → Ubuntu (disambiguation) would make Wikipedia overall more clear and consistent with it own rules. However as time progresses we still might witness how philosophy becomes Yggdrasil and Linux is just 8th in Yggdrasil (disambiguation) list of choices. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Team4Technologies
Oppose If I recall correctly, there are far more speakers of Swahili and other African Languages that have "Ubuntu" as a part of their lexicon than Ubuntu operating system users. I can't imagine that more than 1% of English speakers would know what "Ubuntu" is anyhow, no matter what you're talking about. - Team4Technologies (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But what's relevant isn't usage among Swahili speakers or even English speakers. What's relevant is usage among those likely to search for "Ubuntu".  That narrows it down quite a bit, and the article traffic stats are quite clear on how that falls out.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the Swahili Wikipedia and so appeals to Swahili are not valid.
 * As for those who who search for the term, searches will show the correct link in just as many clicks regardless of which is the primary term so that argument is not valid either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. If the article about the OS is at Ubuntu, then anyone who enters "Ubuntu" in the search box and clicks on "Go" gets to the article about the OS in that one click. Those seeking the philosophy will have to click a second time (on a link in the hatnote) to get to their destination. If we leave the dab page at Ubuntu then anyone entering "Ubuntu" and clicking on Go will only get to the dab page in one click, and will still have to click a second time to get their desired page, including the OS.  Those seeking the philosophy will still have to click a 2nd time to get to their destination.  Last I checked, 2 > 1 and 2 = 2. In other words, those seeking the OS are better off by going to the OS article right away in one click, while those seeking the philosophy are no worse off (either way, they get to their destination in 2 clicks).    --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Awickert
Support: OS as main with good hatnote for the philosophy will get both major meanings across and save everyone a click and make things easier per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Alanscottwalker
Oppose This move does appear to be about trendy temporariness, per the observation of AgadaUrbanist: ". . .philosophy becomes Yggdrasil and Linux is just 8th in Yggdrasil (disambiguation) list of choices." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yggdrasil Linux is not anywhere as notable as Ubuntu Linux, and is far less trafficked than Yggdrasil (mythology). Thus it is not a good analogy. If Yggdrasil Linux got 8x as much traffic as the mythology, and was what readers generally intended when they type Yggdrasil, then that would be more in line with what we are talking about here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Linux is far more notable than one flavour of it. One merely has to look at a Venn diagram of the subjects to recognize the flaw in this logic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course "Linux is far more notable than one flavour of it". How is that undisputed point relevant to this discussion?  The proposal is based on the argument that the specific flavor of Linux known as Ubuntu is much more likely to be sought than is any other topic that might be sought with the search term "Ubuntu", and this is based on the view statistics of the article about the flavor of Linux known as Ubuntu, relative to the view statistics of each of the other articles about the other uses of Ubuntu. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant to this discussion because Jrtayloriv wrote "linux is not anywhere as notable as Ubuntu linux" above. And the statistic you are stating, is that searches or page loads/page views? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I did not write "linux is not anywhere as notable as Ubuntu linux". I wrote that "Yggdrasil linux is not anywhere as notable as Ubuntu linux". Those are two totally different statements: The former is false, and I didn't say it. The latter is correct, and I did say it. I think that Linux, in general, is more notable than Ubuntu Linux. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, then. I've now Wikilink-ed the troublesome parts to make them stand out more. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Walter, it's page view count statistics... which is generally considered a reasonable indicator of how likely the topic of that page is to be sought relative to some other page and it's view counts. There can be exceptions, but a good reason or explanation is warranted then (for example, a large view count can be explained by people getting there by some means other than searching with the term in question). I've seen no explanation for why the traffic on the OS page being 8x that on the philosophy page does not indicate that readers searching with "Ubuntu" are much more likely to be looking for the operating system. Cheers. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what are the counts for this disambiguation page? Do they add-up to the other counts (in other words do people land here and then move to one of those two terms or do they go directly to those terms)? I suspect that they get to the articles through direct links from other locations rather than based on searches, but I don't have the stats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would that matter? Let's say only 5% of users get to their pages via search, and everyone else gets there "directly".   If 8x as many are going to page A rather than page A', isn't it reasonable to assume - in the absence of any good reason to think otherwise - that of those 5% who go to either page via search by entering "A", many more are trying to get to A rather than A'?   I mean, we have many uses of the term "Paris" covered in Wikipedia, but the city in France is at Paris, essentially because the page view stats are much higher for that "Paris" than any other.  This is how we generally determine which  article, if any, is the primary topic for a given search term, regardless of whether it's 90%, 50% 10% or 5% that are getting their via search.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the technical definition of primary topic is the "subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". My assumption is that if they're going directly, it is more likely a direct link rather than a search, although it has been shown that searching for ubuntu yields the OS as the first term before the disambiguation page.
 * Your argument that Paris, France is the primary term does not match the other Paris searches together doesn't really fly in light of my question, but I understand the point that you're making. The term is much more common than either of the ones we're discussing. If you walk up to someone on the street and ask them to say the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Paris" and you will almost universally get something that relates to the city in France. However do the same with "Ubuntu" and you're likely to get a blank stare. Less likely would be if you were to do that in a modern philosophy class or in a computer-oriented group. So while the OS may have more hits, it's still overall still an ambiguous term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand your point. The number of those going "directly" to one topic relative to another - say from a link on another page - is likely to be directly proportional to the likelihood of that topic being sought in a search relative to that other topic.  I mean, if 8 times as many are going to topic A directly than are going to topic A' directly, then I would expect very roughly 8 times as many of those searching for A and A' to be looking for A rather than A' (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise).  I mean, I really have to get creative to think of a hypothetical reasonable exception, but here's one.  Say that there is a very popular article, and on that article is a prominent link to another article about a topic that people are highly unlikely to have heard of or searched for themselves, but many are clicking on it due to its prominent display on the popular article.  In such a case I could see heavily discounting the page view counts for that second article in terms of indicating how likely that topic is to be sought relative to some other topic with that same name.  Though that's a highly contrived example, hopefully it illustrates what kind of exception situation must exist to reasonably argue that the correlation between relative page views and relative likelihoods of being sought might be significantly skewed.  Without such a reasonable explanation, I suggest we have to assume the correlation is high.  That's what's always done in primary topic determination, and it sure seems reasonable to me.  No?   In primary topic determination, all that matters is likelihood of being sought when someone enters the given term in the search box relative to all other uses of that term.  Whether the term in question is actually a household name is not relevant (it is relevant if the other is not, but, again, that's because it establishes one's likelihood of being sought as high relative to the other).  (EDIT: forgot to sign earlier... --Born2cycle (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Re:Yggdrasil Linux is not anywhere as notable as Ubuntu Linux  is beside the point I made. At one time in the recent past Yggdrasil Linux was all the rage but the origin of its patronym remains the primary article. When Ubuntu Linex is replaced by "Mother of God Linex," Ubantu will still be the primary article and what will you do to poor Mary? Indeed, just talking about them now you referred to the philosophy naturally as Ubuntu and Ubuntu Linex, as a particularized use of that name. The use of Ubantu for the philosophy is more natural. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry I was completely misunderstood. This is not a dilemma of chicken and egg. People look for Linux, per provided statistics, when they type Ubuntu, these days at Wikipedia. That's just the objective and measurable way it is. And I'm totally for philosophy being number #1 as disambiguation list goes, we got it right there. Still we need to consider the Wiki reader at the end, even if we go WP:IAR: status quo is awkward and not consistent whatever angle we look at this. This needs to be fixed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not misunderstand you, I just disagree with your conclusion, because, as you noted, the fleeting nature of Linex systems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:ErikHaugen

 * Support The O/S seems like a pretty clear primary topic. I think enough years have gone by to address the recentism concern. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions by User:Alanscottwalker
With respect to the claim that users are coming here to this disambiguation page that don't want to be here. Are there page view statistics for the disambiguation page? Are they markedly higher then for the individual pages? Are they markedly lower?

Are people in fact finding their way, most of the time, to the article they want, without going to this page, at all?


 * It's easy to check, just click on Statistics, scroll down to External Statistics and click on Article traffic statistics. Then enter the names of whatever pages you're interested in. I've found that dab pages consistently seem to get low page view counts.  I believe this is because most people get directly to whatever WP article they are seeking from google, or via a link on another WP article.  That is, the percentage of people who get to articles via the WP Search box and pressing GO is probably relatively low.  That makes sense to me given my own usage, and because it explains the low page views for dab pages.  What that means is we can't really compare the absolute numbers of dab page view counts to related article page view counts to glean anything useful in terms of likelihoods of being search targets.  Again, I think we have to rely on there being a high correlation between page view stats for an article and the likelihood of its topic the one being sought by the minority that is using the WP search mechanism. But it is revealing that despite the relatively low dab page view count of about 55k  compared to the OS's 125k, the philosophy only get 17k .  So even if everyone who went to the philosophy page got there via the dab page (which is certainly not close to true), that would account for only 34% of those getting to the dab page (presumably most by searching for "ubuntu").  If we assume the high correlation I'm talking about, that means about 12%, or about 6k of the 55k who reach the dab page go on to the philosophy, while 88%, or about 49k of the 55k go onto the article about the OS.  Even if we're off by a factor of 2, and it's really 12k and 43k going to the philosophy and OS respectively (which is highly unlikely because that would mean 12k of the 17k that go to the philosophy page, or 70%, get there via the dab page, while only 43k of the 125k going to the OS page, or 34%, get there via the dab page, and I've seen no explanation for why there would be such a disparity in how people get to these pages), that would still mean many more of those going through the WP Search using "ubuntu" and clicking on GO are looking for the OS rather than the philosophy.  Hope that make sense.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this disambiguation page offers sufficient information and no one navigates any further than this page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that case has to account for some percentage of the page views of the dab page, but I presume that's a small percentage and I don't see what significance that can have in determining which, if any, of the Ubuntu uses is primary.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So what. This page gets three times the hits (on average) as the philosophy page does and the OS gets about three time what this page does. So what? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
There is currently a discussion taking place regarding changes to the policy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This discussion is directly related to the current move discussion. Please provide input at WT:D. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (I know that Born2Cycle mentioned this in the conversation above, but I wanted to make sure this stands out for people who are not following the lengthy conversation there). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Although there seems no prospect of consensus above, in view of this I think we should relist the RM. Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.