PRL, Now 62 yrs young, as a child of 10 and interested in anything military, my memories of 'BOWSER' were of a small, camouflaged, two wheeled, oval shaped tanker, containing maybe 250 gallons of aviation spirit, which could be pulled by a Jeep around an airfield full of WW2 spitfires!
This page should be the name of the Nintendo character since that is the most well known use of the word, so troll moved it though. Edgecution 06:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Part of Microsoft Windows operating systems?
The article refers to Bowser as a part of Microsoft Windows operating systems. However, in that article, I can’t find any information about that (the term “Bowser” does not appear there). –SW (18.104.22.168 (talk)) 13:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I rather doubt this was correct; of course, they may have been thinking of "browser". I've removed that entry. TheFeds 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
But it's real, see thesetwo blog posts by Larry Osterman (a programmer at Microsoft who originally wrote the component). Any objections to putting it back in? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Video game character is relatively obscure, known mainly to those few who play Mario Bros games, while other uses are common English. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the character probally would not the clear priamry meaning I would not call the character obscure. The orignal Super Mario Bros. sold over 40 million copies.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I did say relatively. But my describing the players as few is obviously wrong! Good point. Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support No clear primary topic. A google search shows a mixture of topics in it's first few results. The first topic that occurred to me when seeing this request was the tanker and given that usage has (presumably) been around much longer I think a disambiguation page at Bowser is the way to go. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Using Google results in this case would be more convincing if the results indicated a split between the video game character and the other topics listed on this disambiguation page. Instead, they seem to be a split between the video game character (by far the most prominent) and topics that aren't covered on Wikipedia at all. I skimmed the first five pages of results of a search for "bowser -wikipedia" and saw 1 hit marketing the British Columbia community, and 1 hit related to the tanker usage, and that was it for the non-character-topics listed here. Propaniac (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Using number of google hits for something like this has many problems. I suspect your results may be partly due to the version of google you use. Google UK returns five hits to the the tanker in the first 5 pages. There is also the issue that, being a computer related term, internet searches may be biased towards the character. Although looking at Google News results is made difficult by how often Bowser occurs as a name it would appear that the tanker is the more common usage in those results. Meanwhile a google scholar search has the Bowser Basin in BC as the most common usage (after removing articles with an author name of Bowser), which we don't appear to have an article on at all but which certainly appears notable. It was for this reason that I only used the google results as part of my reasoning - I'd never rely on it alone. Having now looked at more closely, both in terms of different types of google search (normal, scholar, news) and several different country versions I'm even more convinced there is no primary topic. Dpmuk (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Support — teh video game character has no legit claim on the redirect and this disambig should be what's on offer. Jack Merridew 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. No clear primary topic has been demonstrated. Quantpole (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Per the wording of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no single criterion, and the consensus of editors makes the decision on existence of a primary topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
– The character is far and away the primary topic by readership and by ghits. The character gets more than 10x the readership of the next most popular article. There is no other historical topic or academic usage that is higher in import for the title. I almost did this move myself boldly since the case is so stark, but want to respect process for the sake of a five-year-old consensus. czar⨹ 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I can name things too—what is the rationale? If the issue is that Bowser (tanker) is more a common phrase and thus has more usage, that doesn't play out in practice: Bowser (character) receives over 10 times the hits in an average 90 day period (38.5k vs. 3.5k). Readers searching for Bowser are far and away expecting the character page and we give them the disambig where it should instead be a hatnote. That's why it is the primary topic. And there is no case for the argument that the other Bowsers somehow have a combined encyclopedic value that overpowers that of the character—they receive a pittance of the interest in the one character article. czar⨹ 11:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which the opposers apparently haven't read in a while. I still am waiting for In ictu oculi's imaginary criterion of "Google Books results" to be added. RedSlash 23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. No primary topic. To many of us, a bowser is primarily a water tanker. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What metric or policy-backed rationale is "many of us"? czar⨹ 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
To claim that the primary meaning for this common word is a video game character is ludicrous WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That essay says nothing about article notability, and the only possibly relevant part, the ten year test, would still indicate that by the traffic metrics measured above, the character is far and away the perennial target for those searching for Bowsers. We're talking ten times the traffic of the tanker with no spikes that would indicate fleeting importance. I see no possible policy-backed rationale for the position that the tanker is equally expected as the target for "Bowser" searches. If anything, the limiting factor is not that the character is more recent (and then somehow of less enduring importance despite its worldwide renown) but that the tanker term "bowser" is UK-centric and not nearly the expected result for international searches of Bowser. czar⨹ 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.