Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 disambiguation discussion 2 User Mahanga 3 derivatives of Ubuntu? 4 Although less important, Linux is more popular. 5 Disambiguation 6 Pointless edit war 7 Standardized Disamabig Page 8 DCC Alliance 9 Redirect Yo 10 Requesting move 11 Correct placement of disambiguation page 12 Revisiting primary topic 13 Continuation of the primary topic discussion

[edit] disambiguation discussion

Would it not be more appropriate for this page to be about the ideology and to have a bit at the top saying "for the linux distribution..." rather than the current disambiguation page? --Jason ^(talk) 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term has been through this loop before: see Talk:Ubuntu (ideology) for such gems as "Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu [Linux] here which is 100x more famous than the word." And I see some Linux-cruft has got onto this page again. For you (and me) the default is the philosophy, which is obviously more important anyway; for others, it's Linux, which is obviously more important anyway... Disambiguation is the Way of Peace :-) JackyR 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. In fact, this page is a waste of time. The ideology is obscure (in en, at least, which we are), and the distribution is popular. A look at the history for each page gives a quick hint which one more Wikipedia users care about; the distribution has over 600 edits, and the ideology has under 100. --130.39.152.206 00:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's likely because many Wikipedians are Linux geeks, which would not be surprising given Wikipedia's affinity with free software & open source. I don't think there's a good case for primary disambiguation either way; equal disambiguation, as at present, is therefore appropriate. — Matt Crypto 01:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The ideology is by no means obscure to English language users - at least 40 million use the term (quick estimate from pops of a few Anglophone southern African countries). And oddly, these are precisely the countries with low internet access, while Linux geekdom is defined by high access. So the edits are not surprising. If Ignorant Anon wants to see a refelction of him/herself, I suggest s/he look in a mirror. If s/he wants to learn something – well, they could look it up in an encyclopedia. I hear Wikipedia's not bad. JackyR 14:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — mark ✎ 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the previously anonymous user (130.39.152.206). "Humanity towards others," eh? For the third time in 24 hours, I am left mentioning that ad hominem attacks are not appropriate to other Wikipedians.

For the record, I am not ignorant; I am quite well educated, certainly beyond average. I know, for example, that neither "him/herself" nor "s/he" is a word in the English language, which uses the masculine where common would be used in languages with that gender available.

I am not interested in seeing a reflection of myself; I am interested in getting what I am looking for when I type something that's not ambiguous. Disambiguation pages between exactly two things are a waste of time. I'd even be happier if the philosophy got the main page because an italicized line under the title is just as easy to click.

Ubuntu the philosophy is just obscure to the overwhelming majority of users here. Our audience is not people without internet connections for at least one obvious reason. --CalculatinAvatar 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than 3 hours ago I was watching Interface (this time hosted by that foxy ice maiden Lerato Mbele) and they were talking about the TRC and goode olde de Klerk used the term "Ubuntu" - I doubt that he's a big fan of Linux... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me see... Since the name of the distribution comes from the philosophy then the philosophy is not so unimportant after all (otherwise the distribution would have another name). What exactly is your problem with the disambiguation? The fact that only a very small percentage of the World's population has internet access is not a good enough reason to exclude the knowledge of everybody else. Everyone thinks that being neurotic means "a little obsessed" but I doubt that's the main explanation at the neurosis article. What Wikipedia claims to be the truth should not be based on popularity. If we were to pretend that the philosophy does not exist then we would be lying (and how would we explain the peculiar name of the distribution?). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I might add that our intended audience is far broader than the internet-savy linux-fans. Consider als the fact that people are thinking about distributing Wikipedia offline and in less developed countries, and suddenly the urgency of Ubuntu Linux is somewhat less. We should strive to be as universally accessible as possible, instead of tailoring our content to the needs of the relatively small community of Linux-people, overrepresented on the internet as they may be. — mark ✎ 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. Proponents of the Ubuntu Linux article note that users here 'care more for that article'. Obviously, if you look at the number of edits the respective articles got (though that's not a trustworthy metric). But it also should be obvious that we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves! — mark ✎ 06:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Avatar, I don't know how to reply without making you feel more got at and distracting from the important issue. Which is still that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the definition refers to human knowledge, not knowledge of English-speakers with internet connections. It's a difference between an encyclopedia and a cosy fan-site or chat-room. If you have doubts, read Jimbo's m:Personal Appeal: I’m doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him. WP raised money through this statement: when I see it spent on this, a subject which is apparently not "obscure to the overwhelming majority of users here", I feel we're committing fraud.

Here's another thing you perhaps don't know about: m:Conference reports/FLOSS, South Africa 2005/Workshop 1#Potential projects. (Zyx, you'll love this!)

But not knowing is not what I meant by ignorant: it's the attitude of "I've never heard of it, so it can't matter," rather than, "Wow, I never knew that: I've learned something today." You're right that describing your edits as "ignorant" borders on WP:CIVIL - but it's in exactly the same tone as your own comment: reflect on how that made a number of contributors to this page feel!

And I know it's an unwise distraction, but the professional writer in me can't let you go without reference to this, which agrees with my OED. By all means ignore this last if you're feeling got at! JackyR 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the apparent consensus against me, though I continue to disagree.

I would note two things. The idea of a disambiguation page in the free textbook was quite amusing. Regarding "ignorant" being in the same tone, my post was directed at the page, not any person. --CalculatinAvatar 21:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the English language edition of Wikipedia (which is an online encyclopedia) is very much for English-speakers with Internet connections. Please see also Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, see "I've never heard of it". JackyR | Talk 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy you cited was from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I am not at all advocating the deletion of Ubuntu (ideology) — I would object to that idea, in fact. I simply believe that the current content of Ubuntu (Linux distribution) should be moved to Ubuntu. The current content of Ubuntu, then, should be moved to Ubuntu (disambiguation). And, of course, there would be a notice on the top of the article, stating something similar to:

This article is about the Linux distribution. For the ideology, see Ubuntu (ideology). For other uses, see Ubuntu (disambiguation).

— H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an entire disambiguation page for just one article is a bit excessive. The notice should state:

This article is about the Linux distribution. For the ideology, see Ubuntu (ideology). For the education fund, see Ubuntu Education Fund.

— H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could have the content of Ubuntu (ideology) at Ubuntu, as was originally the case. How would you feel about that?

As you can now see, different users prioritise different meanings, each group strongly believing its own priority is the "correct" one. The disambiguation page avoids prioritising one meaning over the other (although god help us the two-year-olds are now fighting over order on the page... For heaven's sake...).

This is the third time at least the page has been throught this discussion, so excuse my concentrated No Enthusiasm.JackyR | Talk 23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in May 2003, which is when that edit was from, this would've made sense as Ubuntu was not even released yet. Now, however, the relative amount of obscurity between both topics seems to have changed. [1][2] — H.7004.Vx (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with H.7004.vx, especially now that Ubuntu has grown into a major Linux distribution. I've posted at WP:DAB for additional comments. Mahanga^Talk 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

and just when it settles down, Bill Clinton uses it in a speech...

(Bill Clinton comment left by some anonymous user.)

Ultimately this silly disambiguation page is the price we must pay due to Canonical choosing an existing word to name their distribution.

I have to wonder though where the line is drawn. If the philosophy article only got 10 pageviews per day while the Linux article got 100,000 would it still make sense not to default to the Linux article? Would it still make sense for the philosophy article to get top billing on the disambiguation page? BobbyPeru 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Canonical's decision to overload the term "Ubuntu", perhaps it's unfortunate, but it's hardly unique. A large number of trademarks are made by taking an existing term and applying it to a fanciful context. And it might not be all that unfortunate either. I wouldn't be surprised if knowledge about the Ubuntu distribution creates some interest in the Ubuntu ideology. I know I had never heard of it previously. From that POV, I kind of like having the two-term disambiguation page. Finding what you really want is still straightforward and awareness of the other usage is subtlely increased. --AlphaEtaPi 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would still make sense to me. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu should stay as a dab, because:

1. Moving articles around or redirecting this page would require backlink fixing, which is seldom done; and no backlink fixing would consume server recources, which are currently scarce
2. This arrangement is neutral between pro-Linux and pro-ideology partisans, who cannot come to a consensus on which article is more important/popular/whatever
3. I can't think of any benefit that coulf be objectively measured if things were moved around
4. Frankly, my dear all, this is not that important an issue and people looking for one of the Ubuntu articles will not waste a terrible amount amount of time because of an extra jump.

My opinion, of course.--maf (talk-cont) 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Wikipedia:Disambiguation. CarolGray 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad rule of thumb. One problem here is that Ubuntu-the-ideology is going to be underrepresented on the Internet, and Ubuntu-the-Linux-distro overrepresented. Quite how much is hard to say, but we have to be very careful of systemic bias; that is, we shouldn't prioritise geek topics just because we're an Internet project. (And sheesh, people! Let's not edit war over the order of the entries on the page...) — Matt Crypto 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Mahanga

User:Mahanga has reverted my neutral alpha sort and put the Linux article back on top, stating on the edit summary: "it's not an agenda, order of usage is a guideline". Well, I don't care nor do I know about any ubuntu, be it an operating system or an ideology; I came here to do some needed dab-cleanup, so I'll say this about this user:

1. He has a conflict of interest as he declared on his personal pages his likes for the operating system; he was wrong to find a reason (albeit not proven) to accomodate his interest
2. He is an administrator, so he obviously is right in what he did.

Some ideology partisan will come next and get their own convenient excuse to revert the order once again, until some admin reverts it again. It's the circle of WP life. My job is done here. --maf (talk-cont) 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] derivatives of Ubuntu?

Why does this page have derivatives of Ubuntu listed on it? shouldn't they be on the Ubuntu Linux page? if no-one can give a good reason, I will move them to the Ubuntu (Linux) page, or whatever it's called Inzy 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is quite confusing, and inappropriate. Move it!! Bump it around like a toothless crackwhore!! Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A template on Ubuntu Christian Edition points to this page, to discuss the include/merge that article (Ubuntu Christian Edition) with this disambiguation page. (Obviously somebody wasn't paying attention to what they were linking to.)jonathon 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Although less important, Linux is more popular.

come on, more people want to know about the distro than the ideology/foundation. let this page redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Peteturtle 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ubuntu page should point to the disambiguation page. As a philosophy, it is far more important than any computer operating system will ever be. (As far as I know, nobody has been killed for using an operating system. People were killed trying to convince governments to adhere to the philosophy that Ubuntu is. Maptela Mohapi in pace requiescat.)jonathon 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never new people were killed for believing in Ubuntu. It really is more important than the distro, but you have to see that if you google "Ubuntu," almost all of the first 10 pages of results will be solely about the OS. It's more popular, so shouldn't Wikipedia follow that? I'm not trying to start an edit war. I'm just trying to help Wikipedia. Peteturtle 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peteturtle. The statistics and style guide back up the notion that Ubuntu should redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution), with disambiguation from there... it's simply the much more popular destination for those browsing wikipedia and the web and general. WP:DAB states:

"When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic."

This is definitely the case for Ubuntu. Many more people are searching for the Linux distribution. Look at the top 1000 most viewed pages for the current month. Ubuntu (Linux distribution) is about halfway down... none of the other meanings are listed. Choosing to point the disambiguation page to the most commonly-search meaning is not a judgment about morality or social importance or relevance. It's simply a matter of convenience for users. MOXFYRE (contrib) 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Web statistics are a very flawed measure for judging "primary usage" for this sort of thing, simply because, by restricting ourselves to people connected to the Internet, we are enormously skewing our data. (There are not so many Africans on the Internet, but most Linux users are.) Try Googling "Java", for example. We need to remember that Wikipedia is not just for the people who are well connected to the Internet in 2007. — Matt Crypto 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... what?? Actually, Wikipedia *is* just for the people who are well connected to the Internet right now... since that's the only way to access it! This is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, and if the user base changes in the future, wikipedia can/will adapt rapidly. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It makes no sense to arrange redirect/disambiguation pages for users that aren't present in great numbers yet... regardless of whether that situation is just or desirable.

If more Africans get Internet access (which would be a wonderful development!) and more users want to read to about Ubuntu (philosophy) than Ubuntu (Linux distribution), then the redirect/disambiguation can change. There is no reason for the redirect to be set in stone, as this is simply a matter of practicality rather than principle. MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, part of this is an "eventualist vs immediatist" discussion. Wikipedia stated goal is to "create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". I think we should write it as such, even if at this moment in time most people who access Wikipedia live in developed countries and read it over the Web. Ubuntu Linux is simply not the primary meaning in a global sense, and we are intended to be a global project. Further, it's not a good message to send to people when a computer operating system — popular only with a relatively small number of geeks and created less than 3 years ago — is given precedence over a philosophy known to millions of people who are no less important than other people just because they happen to live in Africa. — Matt Crypto 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with that goal! However, I believe that redirecting from ambiguous terms to primary definition is not a matter of principle or encyclopedic quality or universality, but mainly an issue of convenience. The simple fact is that most people who look up Ubuntu in Wikipedia want the Linux distribution. Those who want one of the other uses will be immediately presented with an {{otheruses}} heading, and will find what they want. This is not a slight to the other articles, simply a means to save a few thousand clicks per day :-) MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] I've put Ubuntu back to the DAB+discuss form, because Peteturtle's redirect had a serious problem: by failing to add a dab-line to Ubuntu (Linux), he made Ubuntu (philos) completely unfindable.

So far I don't see any consensus in this discussion (the same people posting several times does not constitute weight of opinion) and given all previous discussions on precisely this topic, I don't feel those objections have been overcome. In particular, one of Wikipedia 1.0's specific goals is to make Wikipedia available off-line to people in countries with poor internet access - this is in progress now, not the distant future.

Those who are in favour of a redirect to Linux, I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for input on this page. These folk will be non-partisan - tho last time their considered opinion was to leave the dab. JackyR | Talk 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The mango came first, then the Mango fly, now we have Fly Mango the slogan of SAA who would like their slogan to be more popular while it is less important. Have you ever been stung by a Mango fly or eaten a Mango for that matter? If you had done any of the above you would probably remember. For someone looking for Fly Mango, well Wikipedia is not quite there yet..Gregorydavid 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some research... Wikipedia's top 1000 most viewed pages has Transformers (film) at no 6, Bleach (manga) at 15, Heroes (TV series) at 19, Graduation (album) at 29. These are way above Ubuntu (Linux) at "halfway down" (MoxFyre[3]), yet the default entries are all the original word or a DAB. Even Java leads to the island not the programming language.

This seems to undermine all the above arguments for Linux to be the default Ubuntu entry. But I shall research further, just in case. JackyR | Talk 13:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wagon Wheel and [[[Wagonwheel]] and ask yourself what happened to those wagon wheels which came first and seem to have been erased from the record on wikipedia.Gregorydavid 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean Wagonwheel --froth^t 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a big fan of Ubuntu Linux, and I think we should be human by treating others as human, and keep Ubuntu as a disambiguation page. -- Logotu 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I'm inclined to agree with the practically-classic "Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu [Linux] here which is 100x more famous than the word". Actually I whole-heartedly agree with it. DISCUSS! The discussion has seemed to stall, lets get more people on the linux distro bandwagon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless edit war

What is the purpose of changing the order of the times listed in the disambiguation page? Especially when the Wikipedia default is to order items alphabetically. jonathon 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have fairly strong feelings on whether or not this page should be a redirect... but as long as it's a disambiguation page, I don't see any point in squabbling over the order. Alphabetical makes sense on dab pages with only a few entries. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized Disamabig Page

I have fixed the disambiguation page to match standard wikipedia style. It is better this way, please don't revert without first posting here.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu&oldid=168816058 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.175.97 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists - this list is not long enough to justify categorized disambiguation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The place, computing, generic breakdown is easier to read. For those looking for a specific thing, such as the town, the undifferentiated list is harder to parse than the categorized list. Furthermore, given the recent pointless edit war, such categorization might serve to prevent/minimize future pointless edit wars. jonathon 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with categorization is that it would place Ubuntu (Linux distribution) below significantly less popular links such as Ubuntu Education Fund and Ubuntu Award. The Ubuntu Award article, incidentally, does not even exist. The idea here is to help users navigate quickly to the most important topics, not make them look through lists of items they don't care about so much before finding what they are after. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• A categorized list is faster for me to scan through. When I look at it, my eyes immediately jump to the bolded category labels and I find my article instantly. With a big list, I have to look through it manually. While you may be right that my list was technically longer; it is faster to use and that is what's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DCC Alliance

The DCC Alliance article is up for deletion. Those interested may wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DCC_Alliance and/or help improve (correct...) the piece as a historical record of past diversions. —Sladen 07:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Yo

YO man, I heard about this linux distro(butuion) and so I searched it on wikipedi. But if there is an improtant philosophy than that should go first. The distro existed for a few years, but the philosophy started years back man. And it Is WAAAY more p=improtant. THis unsigned comment was left by..... just kidding --Sdakjg (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We want to provide the best service to wikipedia users. That means helping them find the content they are interested in. That means the linux definition. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they happen to be looking for Ubuntu the philosophy. — Matt Crypto 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what percentage looking for philosphy versus distribution? If you don't, perhaps first 100 google results will give us a clue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear policy on the matter at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The very existence of these discussions over and over again indicates that we should avoid redirecting. --HiltonLange (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a comment on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. ffm 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come by to offer a comment after a request was put in for unbiased input at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. The primary topic section of the disambiguation guidelines state pretty much exactly what I was already going to say (and what appears to have been said above): "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." This seems to be a pretty clear case of just that. Since both the philosophy and operating system articles seem very notable, it seems appropriate to leave Ubuntu as a disambiguation page, not a redirect to any particular article. (In this case, the actual technical side of things, the disambiguation page should actually be located at Ubuntu, and Ubuntu (disambiguation) should redirect to it.) -- Natalya 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I left my response here: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Request_to_change_disambiguation_guideline .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting move

This page does not need to have a disambiguation suffix, as the Ubuntu page is simply a redirect here. I'm not sure whether more people look for the philosophy or computer kernel, so I will just leave it like this. PwnerELITE (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. If there's no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be located at Ubuntu, not Ubuntu (disambiguation). Until the primary topic discrepancy gets worked out, I was just leaving it as is, but you are right that if it were to stay this way, it should be moved (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions). -- Natalya 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct placement of disambiguation page

If things were to stay as they were, the disambiguation page should technically be at Ubuntu, not Ubuntu (disambiguation). Because of the ongoing discussion, I'm holding off on changing this until a decision is reached. Just fyi! -- Natalya 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting primary topic

[edit] Continuation of the primary topic discussion

I have a couple concerns with the primary topic decision. Firstly, was the above discussion that sort of turned into a poll meant to be a decisive poll? There was no mention of that that I can remember, and aren't we supposed to decide things, in most cases, by consensus? There still seems to be disagreement on this topic, and some concerns have been expressed to me about the decision that was made. My goal in all of this is just to make sure that whatever is decided about the primary topic, the disambigution page is set properly. I'd be happy to help mediate if there are editors who would like to continue the primary topic discussion. -- Natalya 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a rough consensus, afaict. ffm 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of disambiguation was raised very many times. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. It was also taken to the Disambiguation talk page twice ([10] and [11]), and not once was Consensus or even rough consensus reached, IMHO. I feel that the topic has basically been dealt with by forum shopping, specifically mentioned as something to avoid when seeking real consensus. The results of the discussion were (4:3:0), or at best, (5:3:0), if you count the Support of the original poster, which he asked not to be counted. The fact that this was taken to the Talk:Disambiguation page, and the move was not supported, says to me that people were going to repeatedly reraise this topic until "their" page was promoted to the primary topic, rather than actually seeking guidance from others. --HiltonLange (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one missed the discussion, but I think moving the Linux Distribution to Ubuntu was the right outcome. *shrug* --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal perspective: I am a part-time Ubuntu Linux user, as well as a South African. The word "Ubuntu" is commonplace here, and refers to the spirit of humanity towards others. It has been used in speeches by Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, with the latter two finding no need to clarify its meaning, accepting it as common knowledge. There are over 100 million people in Southern Africa who will identify "Ubuntu" with that original meaning. However, internet access amongst these people is pitifully scarce. No, they will not come onto wikipedia in their droves, searching for Ubuntu, the philosophy. But my point is, those people exist, and they probably outnumber those who will associate "Ubuntu" with Linux. The primary and original meaning of the word still exists in the real world, whether or not those people are regularly searching wikipedia. Considering that the Linux distribution was named after this concept of humanity, especially as a way of embodying the spirit of it, it seems to be especially ironic that users of the distribution seem to casually disregard that the original meaning is being lost. Additionally, one of the top criticisms of Wikipedia is systemic bias in coverage, and basing a primary topic decision about the number of wikipedia searches only entrenches that bias and further marginalises Wikipedia. This isn't a decision I will fight for, or make edits, but it's a sad one IMHO. --HiltonLange (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I asked that my vote not be counted twice. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As a disambiguation point, just to be sure that everyone is clear (I think most people are, but just in case), there are many cases with disambiguation pages where there are multiple topics that are well-known - in these cases, there is no primary topic, and all articles are listed the same on the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's undeniable that Ubuntu Linux is the most popular search target for the word "Ubuntu" on the Web, but it is by no means the primary meaning in the world at large. It's something of a trade-off. By elevating Ubuntu Linux to Ubuntu, we've helped people get to what they're looking for faster on average. The downside is that we've increased our systemic bias. The same tradeoff would lead to moving, for example, Java programming language to Java. I think it's a short-sighted strategy, personally. — Matt Crypto 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ubuntu Linux editors have moved on. We're not going to get any significant input from them, this page is no longer showing when they search for Ubuntu, so they'll be silent while the current status quo holds. Unless someone with some more Wikipedia experience than myself takes this to Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation for an objective decision, I'll let it lie. For the record, I feel that the Ubuntu topic has been hijacked, and the search for input was blatant forum shopping. It shouldn't have been taken to the talk page unless outside input was actually sought. --HiltonLange (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to have a final decision on the issue, one way or another. I'll bring it up at Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation, to hopefully get some more input. -- Natalya 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already a section from April. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted something of a reminder, just to make people aware that there is still some discussion going on. -- Natalya 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does your definition of wp:forum shopping mean escalating to one forum or was there more than that? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I've posted above the 7 times that it was raised, and (imho), none of those came close to reaching consensus for the change. The biggest single problem I had was that it was raised at the (hopefully) objective Wikipedia_Talk:Disambiguation, and when those editors failed to support the primary topic proposal, it was re-raised here, disregarding that decision. It was then pushed through on a "consensus", which simply didn't exist. --HiltonLange (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been ignoring this latest "debate" over Ubuntu until I noticed something disturbing. Since when was the operating system named just "Ubuntu" without the "Linux" qualifier?

Ubunt has nothing to do with computing. If you insist on promoting systemic bias couldn't you have at least made "Ubuntu" a redirect? However, the previous situation, where "Ubuntu" redirected to the disambiguation was optimal.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be a redirect to Ubuntu (Linux distribution), Ubuntu (Computing), or Ubuntu (GNU). I don't agree we should inconvenience 15x users with a disambiguation page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)