Talk:GNU (disambiguation)

Requested move

Am I the only who finds it really annoying when talk pages are deleted just because the associated page has been deleted or become a redirect? It is unnecessary (is it supposed to save space or something?) and means the original discussion about why things were moved in the first place is lost so other editors move stuff back not knowing about previous consensus. Talk pages contents could at least be merged with the article the old one redirects to.

Anyway, on topic, I think the article should be moved to Gnu (disambiguation) (in line with the normal practice of making letters that could be lower or upper case in DP titles lower case), particularly if we keep The Gnu entry in there, which I'm not clear really needs disambiguating since I don't think anyone just calls it Gnu without the definite article, but, I guess, as it is arguable, it might as well be left.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak support (as the nominator) —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 03:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. gnu redirects to wildebeest. People looking for The Gnu may be unlikely to come here as you say. Most users here are probably looking for something written GNU with capitals. The example in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Introductory line says:

"AU may refer to" is preferable over "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to".

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations also has the AU example, and also says:

Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb.

I rarely edit disambiguation pages. Is there any documentation for your statement "normal practice of making letters that could be lower or upper case in DP titles lower case"? If you feel for it then talk pages of my citations may be a better place to discuss it. PrimeHunter 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per above. – Marco79 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In case this changes the situation, another entry for something called Gnu (in lower case) has been added, namely the brand of snowboard (although it is sometimes capitalised particularly in model numbers--I don't think it is an acronym though).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal?

Isn't there a bovine species called Gnu? I had a plushie one as a kid. Maybe I'm spelling it wrong, but the name sounds like "new". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.185.89 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Add and delete articles?

I think that List of GNU packages should probably be listed at GNU (disambiguation), to help the reader find them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

List articles should never be the target of a disambiguation page. Why? Because it is a list of things none of which is ever referred to simply as "GNU". On the other hand, besides the GNU OS, one might refer to either GNU Project or the GNU Core Utilities simply as "GNU". The latter is the "GNU" in "GNU/Linux". Yworo (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. See GNU Project in the previous section. And GNU Core Utilities could be the same way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already added them. The real key is the answer to the question, "Would anyone ever refer to that simply as X?" So for the snowboard company, Q. "What brand of snowboard is that?" A. "Gnu". Q. "What software project developed that?" A. "GNU". etc... Yworo (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The GNU snowboard link should probably be deleted. Doesn't meet the disambiguation guidelines. — Lentower (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See Delete Gnu Snowboards. — Lentower (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I added Rfcs at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Rfc_on_what_belongs_on_a_dab_page and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Rfc_on_what_belongs_on_a_dab_page. — Lentower (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's handle this in a clearer manner

Let's handle this in the manner AfD and other consensus making is done. Please add to the consensus with either Add listing or Oppose listing with discussion on why, based on the {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}, e.g. MOS:DAB, WP:PTM, etc. If you already commented above, please copy it below. PLEASE also have a separate section or sub-section for each suggested addition or deletion. — Lentower (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Add GNU Project

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.

---

I think that GNU Project should be listed at GNU (disambiguation), to help the reader find them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Let's handle this in a clearer manner. — Lentower (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Add listing Usages like "Let's talk to the people at GNU." have been in use since the GNU Project was announced over 25 years ago. Using this disambiguation page to disambiguate the usages outside Wikipedia is useful to our readers. Which article got labelled GNU was an ambiguous choice made by a small group of editors. There are tens of thousands volunteers who have worked on GNU and it's many software components, as opposed to a few hundred employees of the Free Software Foundation, which was founded to provide legal and fund-raising support for GNU. — Lentower (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment adding a redirect page GNU (project) might be useful. — Lentower (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment moving (i,e, re-titling) GNU Project to GNU (project) could also be done, though a consensus should be developed on Talk:GNU first. — Lentower (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose listing unless evidence can be provided to show that this topic is commonly referred to as just "GNU". bd2412 T 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Adding this article also seems to be a case of natural disambiguation, as claimed for Delete Gnu Snowboards. — Lentower (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I'd personally consider the GNU Project, GNU software, GNU userspace being referred to as GNU (the kernel not though - it's Hurd). I haven't checked the articles, but unless I'm mistaken, MOSDAB says if there's any doubt to assume they are (or some such wording). Caveat - the primary topic may cover them - I haven't checked. Widefox; talk 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. This one is debatable. If GNU Project is renamed to GNU (project), then I would support its inclusion. If consensus leans toward inclusion, then I suppose that's OK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (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.

Add List of GNU packages

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.

---

• Oppose listing Disambiguation pages have a very narrowly focused purpose on Wikipedia. They are not used for a wide-ranging list collection of items that have some relationship to the term being disambiguated. There are enough other ways to accomplish this for any related article. — Lentower (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PTM. I don't find it plausible for someone looking for bash to search "gnu" (and not GNU, in which case, he gets results.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose listing unless evidence can be provided to show that this topic is commonly referred to as just "GNU". bd2412 T 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not ambiguous with GNU. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Yworo: That is incorrect (above) - we do link to list articles all the time per MOSDAB - see for example MOS:DABNAME. As for this case, certainly the list items are not referred to solely as GNU, per others. List is irrelevant, ambiguous is. Widefox; talk 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I clarified my oppose at the start of this section. I wasn't saying that dab pages could not include List articles. E.g. an article titled List of GNUs would probably be OK to be added to this dab page. — Lentower (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to Yworo. Widefox; talk 13:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose packages aren't known solely as GNU, although not opposed to putting in a see also if useful for the reader. As the GNU OS and Project produced these packages, I expect readers can find them that way. Also, that list and more is covered by the intitle in the see also currently anyhow, don't see a need. Widefox; talk 23:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is only tangentially related, and it would be a misuse of the disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (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.

Add GNU Core Utilities

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.

---

• Oppose listing Disambiguation pages have a very narrowly focused purpose on Wikipedia. They are not used for a wide list of items that have some relationship to the term being disambiguated . There are enough other ways to accomplish this for this article. — Lentower (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PTM. This article is not about "GNU". Let GNU handle this instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose listing unless evidence can be provided to show that this topic is commonly referred to as just "GNU". bd2412 T 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not ambiguous with GNU. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Similar to packages reasoning, but more likely to be known as GNU. GNU userspace. It used to be all that GNU (the full OS incl kernel) was. It seems like a WP:PTM, but it's not, summed up in expressions like "GNU/Linux" GNU referring to userspace. GNU (the OS) was just that for a long time. That's the problem with GNU, it's a bit nebulous and evolved. Second thoughts, this isn't the article to cover this, best in the OS article. Widefox; talk 00:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same as above. While potentially useful to readers, it is an inappropriate use of a disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (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.

Add GNU General Public License

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.

---

I think that GNU General Public License should probably be listed like the others, to help the reader find it. "What license is it released under?" "GNU." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but "GPL" would be a more common answer, I'd think. Yworo (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Let's handle this in a clearer manner above. — Lentower (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose listing Disambiguation pages have a very narrowly focused purpose on Wikipedia. They are not used for a wide list of items that have some relationship to the term being disambiguated . There are enough other ways to accomplish this for this article. — Lentower (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PTM. Not everything that starts with "GNU" needs to be in the dab page. And besides, "GPL" is a more likely alternative. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose listing unless evidence can be provided to show that this topic is commonly referred to as just "GNU". bd2412 T 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not ambiguous with GNU. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Easy one. It's GPL. Never heard it referred to as GNU.Widefox; talk 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly not appropriate. "GNU license" would make sense to most people familiar with the GPL, but it is not referred to like that in normal conversation. This is akin to using the disambiguation page as a useful index of related articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (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.

Delete Gnu Snowboards

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.

---

• Oppose listing per WP:PTM. Not everything that starts with "GNU" needs to be in the dab page. (Thanks Codename Lisa for the phrasing.) — Lentower (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep listing. Actually, this is not a WP:PTM violation. The title of the subject is "Gnu" and the word "snowboards" is added for natural disambiguation. Even its website is gnu.com. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose listing unless evidence can be provided to show that this topic is commonly referred to as just "GNU". The website is one good indicator of that, but what about news and magazines from the industry? bd2412 T 11:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• No sweat. Here is the evidence: gnu.com. Of course, if you have any objection about the notability and such ... join the club. I do too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Agree, if it wasn't for the url it would be less clearcut. As you say, the notability is another thing and is it "reasonably" likely for readers to be looking for this one? I don't know, I default to being conservative. Widefox; talk 11:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree.
  • We are not disambiguating the website name, but the article title.
  • The gnu.com is not visible to the reader.
  • The website is gnu.com not just gnu.
  • The article title/link Gnu Snowboards is a redirect, not the article itself, which is about the board's manufacturer.
  • The two words "Gnu Snowboards" are the only words about this board in the article (plus the external link), with no notability established (that article has no citations except external links to the company (to expand on what Codename Lisa stated above).

I agree with BD2412, we need evidence from "news and magazines from the industry" and/or perhaps other reliable sources, to include this listing.

— Lentower (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

gnu.com is just an indicator that there's an ambiguous term. The .com part is irrelevant, similar to Ltd, AG, Inc. for a company name.

A redirect is fine. We use them on dab pages - for example linking to an alternative title to use the ambiguous term.

Listing a mentioned term is OK, per WP:DABMENTION Widefox; talk 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lentower. If that is indeed your attitude, a deletion discussion for the redirect might be the right avenue for you. But per WP:NATURAL, if I wanted to create a title about a snowboard brand called GNU, "GNU Snowboards" is preferable over "GNU (brand)" or "GNU (snowboard)". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep listing as ambiguous. (Looks like this should be a Oppose deletion !vote, but that's not how it's gone so far.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep listing another easy one. Ambiguous. Widefox; talk 00:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. This one seems ambiguous, and I might include it. However, I did a few Google searches, and I didn't see any overly obvious examples of reliable sources using "a gnu snowboard" or "the gnu snowboard". If consensus leans toward inclusion, then that's fine with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Yes as is, but

• Keep the entries in version. Yes the snowboards, and yes those two software ones. More importantly, there's a primary topic GNU that was missed by everyone. I've fixed the dab for this, but...
• Primary topic - I'd be very surprised if there's a primary topic at all - the OS is really the primary topic? - the project / utilities should be more popular outside of WP than the whole thing with the GNU Hurd i.e. Linux (GNU/Linux if you prefer). Inside WP...the justification for the current primary topic is where? Part of the problem with this is the fact that Hurd came along last, making the utilities more popular with Linux filling the gap (but I digress)...
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "more likely than all the other articles combined" needs debating. I've also added an "intitle" to pick-up individual utilities, list articles etc. Widefox; talk 09:29, 5 September 2014 (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.

Separate Gnu (disambiguation) and GNU (disambiguation) pages

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.

---

These should be separate pages, or the GNU one redirecting to the Gnu one, because things like "Gnu snowboards" make no sense on the all-caps GNU disambig page. The primary topic of GNU is the GNU Project. The primary topic of gnu is the animal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed There are not enough entries to have two separate pages. Many disambiguation pages have links to articles on quite diverse topics. — Lentower (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question A link(s) to what the WP guidelines have to say about upper/lower case variations of the same disambiguation term (if they cover this)? — Lentower (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DPAGE indicates that grouping these two different cases: GNU/Gnu, is OK. — Lentower (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose yes, we mix case on dabs as standard, as Lentower quotes "..differences in capitalization, which invariably share a disambiguation page.". Then we split only when too large.
• Comment We (currently) have primary topics for gnu and GNU (the OS) for the respective primary topics. User:SMcCandlish - did you mean the Project as the primary topic? The GNU (OS) primary topic is interesting, as the article is about the OS (including the Hurd kernel) which has little take-up (as the Hurd kernel is delayed), whereas the rest of the results of the GNU Project ("GNU software" that are portable and can be installed on any OS) would be the primary usage e.g. with Linux and others. This is why I was giving the packages more of a listing. As this is covered in the OS article, it may not matter. When we have 2 primary topics and a merged dab page, the navigation is a problem - MOSDAB doesn't detail what to do - 1. both be listed at the top 2. Gnu listed near the top ? or other possibilities. The dab is shared with both, and readers could have come from either (the reason we put the primary topic at the top, as we assume they've come from there). Widefox; talk 12:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Revision: Then it should be at Gnu (disambiguation) with GNU (disambiguation) redirecting to it, and a lead that says "Gnu or GNU may refer to:", instead of treating GNU as primary for both "GNU" and "gnu".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:21, 7 September 2014 (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.