This page is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I propose the following page moves:
Oppose. I created this page. Chris Pickett 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
However, after reading the opinions below, I have changed my mind. See discussion for details. --Chris Pickett 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, for many reasons: 1. Primary meaning: A very large majority of users searching for "Linux" is looking for the operating system. See WP:DAB#Primary topic. 2. Almost every single different language Wikipedia has the operating system at "Linux". 3. "Linux OS" is not an understandable title for non-experts. Prolog 09:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The OS is clearly the primary topic. All of the articles save the detergent are actually named for the OS to boot. – Anþony talk 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose -- As mentioned above primary meaning of Linux for majority of users is the operating system "Linux OS" is confusing for general public, Linux page has a clear dab link for people who want to go to Linux kernel page. -- AdrianTM 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this looks like a withdrawal of the proposal. Should we remove from WP:RM and close out the discussion? -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove from WP:RM, but I think we should leave the discussion/survey up as a reference. --Chris Pickett 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's your call. I was just asking, it's not like I'm salivating to remove the thing ASAP. If you think there might be a turn in discussion, and leaving it up would help, then it's fine with me. -Patstuarttalk|edits 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, It solves a minor problem. It's also seem better from a KISS perspective. Mike92591 04:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as my personal POV goes, I am not particularly bothered by calling the operating system any of "GNU/Linux" or "Linux" or "the Linux OS", or the kernel as "Linux" or the "Linux kernel". I abstain from participating in the controversy. My goal here is to create a clear disambiguation page in the right place, since obviously people cannot agree as to what Linux refers to. If you look at the talk archives, it is eating up a lot of time unnecessarily, something that I think could be fixed pretty easily. However, there needs to be a pretty good vote in favour of this proposal before an admin will accept it on Wikipedia:Requested_page_moves#6_December_2006. If for some reason my proposal is POV pushing in some way, please let me know so that I can make it more neutral. --Chris Pickett 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to "merge" GNU/Linux here. It contains nothing that isn't here already. Undoubtably anyone searching for the term is looking for the operating system, so it should be a redirect to Linux. Your proposed moves (Linux -> Linux OS and Linux (kernel) -> Linux kernel) violate standard disambiguation procedure. If the operating system were not the primary topic (which it clearly is), the correct location would be Linux (operating system). – Anþony talk 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that there is no "Linux operating system." Linux is the kernel. Is it really that difficult to understand? If anything should be a redirect it should be Linux redirecting to GNU/Linux with a disambiguation on top "for the kernel see blah blah". 18.104.22.168 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"since obviously people cannot agree as to what Linux refers to" -- there are two issues here, one is that people when they say "Linux" they refer to either the kernel or the OS, that's already taken care by the dab link "For the kernel itself, see Linux (kernel)". The other issue is the trollish issue about GNU/Linux vs. Linux that's a non-issue from my perspective because if somebody types "GNU/Linux" is redirected to "Linux" anyway. -- AdrianTM 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I read your comments. I have to say I agree that Linux should be the primary page. Thank-you for your explanations. However, let's leave the survey up for more people to register their opinions in one coherent place. The reason I created the page was that I entered GNU/Linux and came across this bizarre disambiguation page. I didn't want to change it without gathering some people's opinion since people had explicitly asked for that not to happen on Talk:GNU/Linux. At the same time I was not happy with there being two disambiguation pages where one would suffice. And finally I found that Windows and Mac were actually disambiguation pages and I thought it would be consistent to have Linux as such as well. I see the GNU/Linux page has been reverted to a redirect, hopefully that lasts.
Thanks for considering my arguments. and I agree GNU/Linux shoud not lead to any disambiguation page, redirecting to Linux is just fine. -- AdrianTM 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In any event, I fixed the proposal to address Anþony's concerns re: disambiguation naming. I happen to think Linux kernel is a better name for the page, and this doesn't seem to contradict the policy, refer to section 22.214.171.124 which suggests "Titan rocket" in preference to "Titan (rocket)", and thus "Linux kernel" in preference to "Linux (kernel)". (Same argument holds for Linux operating system in preference to Linux (operating system).) That's a different topic however, so if I'm going to do anything about it I'll propose the move somewhere else.
I tend to agree, "Linux kernel" is probably better than "Linux (kernel)" but that's a minor issue -- AdrianTM 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I think I'm going to change the text that says "Linux operating system" to "Linux operating system" on the Linux (kernel) page, since it's apparently redefining the term Linux. If you think this is a bad thing to do, please say something. I'm also going to clarify Linux (disambiguation) so that it doesn't say Linux refers to the naming controversy (it doesn't). --Chris Pickett 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In the context of Linux (kernel), "Linux" by itself should refer to the kernel. Whether or not "operating system" is included as part of the link to the operating system is a bit trivial though. Suppose Linux were disambiguated to Linux (operating system). You could make the case that it would still look better to write it as Linux operating system, perhaps even Linuxoperating system. Be bold and see if anyone reverts you. – Anþony talk 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
'Linux' redirects to 'GNU/Linux' and says at the top 'This page is about the operating system, GNU/Linux - a combination of 'Linux (kernel)' and 'GNU Operating System', for uses outsides of computing, see 'Linux (disambiguation)'
That way, most people going to GNU/Linux or Linux will see the article they're probably looking for, given the ambiguous naming, but the article to the kernel and to GNU sans Linux would also be available.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattl (talk • contribs) 16:21, December 14, 2006 (UTC)
Before proposing such things I'd recommend you read a little bit in archives (Talk:Linux) to see that the old dead horse has been beaten too much by now. -- AdrianTM 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a long-standing practice to use the common name of a subject in the title of an article. Operating systems based on the Linux kernel, which typically including GNU components among many other things, are more commonly referred to as Linux by users, developers, and the media. Wikipedia does not and should not advocate or promote one name over the other. – Anþony talk 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sophistry. Yes, the article is DNA not de-oxyribonucleicacid. But it is Mercedes-Benz not Mercedes despite the more common almost universal use of "Mercedes". The fact is that the above mentioned "use the common name" rule works well when there is no controversy and no disambiguation issue. But it is only by context whether we know "Linux" to refer to the kernel or to an o/s containing the kernel. More and more, now, "linux" is used as a proxy in the pop media to refer to all FOSS. Using the above arg I should pop over to the FOSS article in a year or two and rename it "Linux". No. Disambiguation and controversy surrounds the use of "Linux". By taking one usage over the others we are taking a POV in an ongoing political debate. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Extraordinary that the asteroid is notable but Linux (washing powder) was deleted as not being notable. Only a crowd of geeks (Hey, I'm one too!) could think that a chunk of rock in outer space is more notable than that which is used by 1000's to wash their clothes every week. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)