Talk:Pylons (Web framework)

Pylons (web framework)

Installation, Dependencies, and Set-up. From the pylonshq.com page, it appears that installation is through a downloaded script (go.py) in the current version (0.97); via PyPi for the latest 1.0 release candidate, and via ubuntu packaging for somewhat older versions. Could anyone who knows the actual plans comment on this? --Charles Merriam (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that Pylons should remains a redirect to the disambiguation page. Dpmuk (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pylons (web framework) → Pylons — At present, Pylons redirects to pylon. That might be sensible if we had a pylon article chock full of content about structural supports, but we don't; pylon is a disambiguation page. Thus, I don't really think that one can argue that the content of pylon comprises coverage of a primary topic; and so Pylons (web framework) ends up looking a lot more "primary". However, there appears to have been some controversy in the past, over which of these is the best situation:

Pylons redirects to pylon, which disambiguates to (among other things) Pylons (web framework) (this is the current situation)
Pylons redirects to Pylons (web framework), which has a redirect hatnote pointing to pylon (this was the case once or twice in the past)
Pylons is the article on the Pylons web framework, with a hatnote pointing to pylon (this is what I'm proposing)

This was proposed through the speedy move mechanism less than a week ago, but was rejected, apparently because the request template had its parameters out of order. I'm also concerned that the change isn't "uncontroversial", so I'm doing it this way. -- Perey (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as there are several "pylon" articles. It is because of this ambiguity that there is no article just called "pylon". Peter E. James (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Looking to see WhatLinksHere for Pylons shows a variety of articles that have nothing to do with the web framework. (If this wasn't so, I'd possibly agree with the move). +mt 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose clearly not primary meaning. Pylons is the plural of pylon. Most of the entries on that dab page have higher prominence than this subject on this page. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.