From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Requested move[edit]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ubuntu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Very handy, thanks. ;)  狐 FOX  00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The bot should have notified the talk page of the operating system article, but didn't. I have done so. I have also notified on the talk page for the philosophy article, as moving the dab page could affect that too. It would have been appropriate for the person proposing the move to have ensured proper notification. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The bot didn't because the person who formulated the request did it wrong. (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
IP is correct -- I did screw up when posting up the RM. It's likely something stupid I did that broke it. Did I break anything else? (might not hurt to check) Sorry -- I haven't done many RMs before. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The instructions state that the "current1" entry in the movereq template is supposed to be the article page of the talk page on which you place the template:

Note that the article specified for current1 is the article for the talk page where you are holding the discussion. For example, if you were proposing a move for the article Wikipedia and other articles, current1 would be Talk:Wikipedia.

(Note: I think that's incorrect and should say, "current1 would be Wikipedia") Anyway, you put the request on Talk:Ubuntu but listed Ubunto (operating system) as "current1". [4] It should have been "current1=Ubuntu|new1=Ubunto(disambiguation)|current2=Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubunto" OR you should have put the template on to Talk:Ubuntu (operating system). In either case, current1 needed to match the name of the article associated with the talk page of where you were putting the request. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I'll make sure that doesn't happen again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ubuntu the operating system deserves a page on its own[edit]

Resolved: several years ago.

And people here don't even let me change the order to put it first in the disambiguation page:

  1. Ubuntu the OS is more famous (proven by statistics posted above).
  2. It's an Operating System, used by millions people in the world.
  3. Its article is much bigger.
  4. Alphabetically, "operating systems" goes before "philosophy" (letter O goes before letter P).
  5. Ubuntu the OS does more good than that called philosophy that no one knows anything about.
  6. Ubuntu the OS is updated every 6 months, so is constantly changing, therefore the flow of people visiting this page for the Operating system is more important than the visitors for a unchanging phylosophy.

IF YOU ARE NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH - AS THE UBUNTU PEOPLE THAT DONATES THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND TIME FOR FREE FOR A NOBLE AND IMPORTANT CAUSE - to give it its own wiki page, at least let Ubuntu the Operating System stay first in the disambiguation page.

Thanks for reading. -- (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The operating system does have its own page. This is a disambiguation page and will remain so until a better reason can be found as WP:PRIMARY is not satisfied as per the discussion above. As per the discussion in archive 2, the philosophy came first and it is the term from which all other terms flow and as such, it is first on this page and will remain that way until such time as a different argument can be made to keep it first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
What came first is not a valid reason: Windows, the part of a building was invented before Bill's Gates Operating System, but Windows the OS has its own wiki page! That's not fair. What's your excuse now? -- (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
See Windows (disambiguation). Notice the first entry is "Windows is the plural form of window". For further comparison you may also want to look at Window (disambiguation), Window, and Windows, which redirects to Microsoft Windows. Also it's not a good example because if you write "window" you think of the opening in a wall and if you write "windows" you would likely be referring to many openings while "Windows" is a trademarked name for an OS.
Don't change the article again until consensus has been changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus that the philosophy should remain listed first, followed by the operating system. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Ubuntu (I also use Ubuntu from time to time), there is no reason for an encyclopedia to be "generous" to an operating system because it is free to download. Even the developers of Ubuntu have noted that the philosophy is where they derived the name for the operating system. And just because you don't know about the philosophy doesn't mean that "no one knows anything about" it. Take a deep breath, exhale, and turn off your caps lock. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+1 on caps lock off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
+1? what is wikipedia an MMORPG? (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
+5 on IP 31 l othe (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
+1 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


I tread gingerly (WP:BRD)...sidestepping the primary topic per above, and grouped for clarity, with the cola probably not known as simply Ubuntu so moved to see also. Widefox; talk 23:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)[edit]

A requested move discussion was opened at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) that would affect this page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


User:Walter Görlitz is there a need to change the whitespace? "restoring correct spacing" :

  1. Adds two lines around the comment which is incorrect per WP:WHITE - as fixed by User:JohnBlackburne
  2. My understanding is: having whitespace around section titles is personal preference per MOS:SECTIONS (see comment in wikicode), personal style should be retained per WP:STYLEVAR unless "substantial reason", and should be discussed here per that. I believe the sections here originally had no whitespace per my edit [5] / [6], similar for whitespace in my comment [7]. As we keep dabs concise, my preference is minimal whitespace, and I confess I do remove section title whitespace when cleaning a dab (not the case here). I've fixed my comment to not be on a separate line which although more ugly, is recommended by MOS. Widefox; talk 11:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The spacing issue around the hidden comment has been resolved. It's not so much a personal preference as the default setting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not following you, what's the default setting? Do you agree STYLEVAR WHITE say that such whitespace is personal preference and should be discussed here, and never edit warred? The timeline is now complicated by an IP editor joining in on this. User: please discuss here first per above. Widefox; talk 14:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Go to a talk page. Click the add topic link at the top of the page. Add some content. Save. Edit the page. Notice the spacing. That's what was being restored. It was applied using Wikipedia:WikEd and was not my preference.
Is there a whitespace section in STYLEVAR? I do not see it.
I am the anon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz If you're the IP, then aren't you over WP:3RR? I've got it to protected. Did you read the links above while you were edit warring logged in and out? MOS:SECTIONS and WP:STYLEVAR. Edit warring is explicitly mentioned, let alone 3RR. Reported. Widefox; talk 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm done editing for now so no further chance of violating 3RR. And do stop pinging and linking to me. This article is on my watch list. I will eventually see the edits.
Help:Whitespace is a help page, not a policy or guideline. Neither SECTIONS nor STYLEVAR say anything about whitespace. Did you do what I asked to determine what the default is? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't help you understand why you're being disruptive here unless you actually WP:LISTEN 1. read the above about whitespace, 2. appreciate your edits and logging out go over 3 reverts in just over 24hrs, 3. how that's explicitly not meant to be over whitespace 4. you're editing against consensus 5. this disruption has got you listed at SPI and AN/3 by two editors. Maybe after a sign of that, I'll look at it, yes as I'm curious, but if I understand you claim when adding a new section, but no new section was added so I've ignored it for now, as it seems WP:POINTY. Widefox; talk 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me until you've tried what I suggested: it shows the default whitespace process. It's not disruptive to anyone but you two. (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Count higher, and see the AN/3 conclusion. Time to drop it. Widefox; talk 18:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)