Talk:Open source (disambiguation)

Recent edits

Who is "Aqw31Qh3" and why are they messing up the Open source (disambiguation) page throughout its recent history?

I intentionally titled a section "As software" rather than "Software" to alphabetically keep that section first at the top as it's the most common usage.

I intentionally titled a section "In agriculture, economy, manufacturing and production" rather than "Agriculture, economy, manufacturing and production" to alphabetically keep that section lower down from the top. Also, I don't have a better title for the section and "In media", "In popular culture", etc are common enough that I think "In" seems short and concise and better than other more verbose associations. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who "Aqw31Qh3" is, but it appears they think they have to sign their edits. As far as section titles, my objection to "In" or "As", etc. is grammatical - it lacks a subject. Maybe "Open source as software", etc. would be better. I don't think the sections have to be in alphabetical order, arrange them in any order that fits. I agree software should be the top, as that is top-of-mind. Wiki is complaining about the number of pages that link to a disambiguation page, maybe it should be split, or the incoming links changed as suggested. Peter Flass (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Flass: We think changing Open source to a WP:broad concept article can solve the disambiguation issues. Skip to near the end of the next section relocated from my talk page. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Albums?

I don't know why, but I looked at the Talk:Open-source (with a dash) page and found only {{albums}}. So I've moved it here, at the top. Delete it if you see fit. Talk:Open source (disambiguation) was empty but for a redirect to here that I've copied to Talk:Open-source (with a dash). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I also have no idea why the Albums Project template is here. I will remove it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:JasonCarswell "Open source" discussion archived and copy-relocated here...

Hello. I see that you have changed the target of redirects Open-source and Open source. Please can you help us to fix the resulting mis-directed links? The disambiguation page Open source (disambiguation) now has 4,573 bad incoming links (which is as many as the other 295,000 disambiguation pages have in total). I've fixed about 500 of them with template edits but we're going to need some help here! Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Now down to 4,277. That's several editor-days work. The move also created a WP:MALPLACED error. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and Narky Blert: Hi. I hope it was the best thing to do. I wasn't sure but I really think it is and figured if ever there was a time to "be bold", this was it. I'm happy to help but my experience is limited. Is there a script/addon/app for such a thing? I apologize for creating a mess but my intentions are good. I am committed to fixing every bad link, even if it takes a days. I'm having trouble finding the "what links here" thing. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, found it. More persistence paid off. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pages that link to "Open source"
• Pages that link to "Open-source"

Is there a place to submit requests for bots to do specific tasks like these? This seems like something they might do best. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked about bot stuff at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Open-source. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. A bot could help but only if we can give it an algorithm for deciding the new destination of each link. My tool of choice when many pages link to one dab is WP:DisamAssist. DabLinks can also do the job but is better suited to the opposite case where one page links to many dabs. Certes (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and Narky Blert: It occurs to me that I may be doing work that is only half way so I've stopped until I get feedback. My edits between my first note above (12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)) and whatever this time stamp is may need addressing to.

To my point, I'd been simply find/replacing "open source" and "open-source" to [[open source (disambiguation)|open source]]. (I don't think I missed capitals starting sentences.) That may be a patch/band aid for the redirect issue, but it might really be better to actually read the context to specifically insert a better pipe to these top three uses: "open-source licence", "open-source model", and "open-source software".

I wrote the above while you were posting your note. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As you say, it's better to find a more specific article, e.g. divert Foo is an open source goat simulator to Open-source software. Open source (disambiguation) isn't usually the best destination. Certes (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Flass: Also, who is "Aqw31Qh3" and why are the messing up the Open source (disambiguation) page throughout its recent history? More importantly I also added some other page specific comments to Talk:Open source (disambiguation) and would appreciate feedback, comments, endorsements and/or criticisms. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Aqw31Qh3 was blocked indefinitely on 30 October. However, this edit suggests that they may still be active. Certes (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes:Those edits don't even make sense for a vandal. Looks like a virus bot on a rampage of insanity.

Any chance you can tell my how your process and how you go about fixing the "open source" issue? I stopped what I only started to do and I feel like there must be a better way. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandals don't follow rules! It looks like an attempt at publicity for, er, something.

I'm using DisamAssist and deciding the link mainly on the type of thing being discussed. Usually they're in phrases like "X is an open-source Y" and the link depends on whether Y is a type of (or synonym for) software, licence or movement. If none of the above then I check the less common meanings and, if in doubt, default to open-source model, though that is mainly about software. Certes (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks Certes, I think the DisamAssist might be what I'm looking for. I found it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#How to help with some other potentially neat tools. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: In added the DisamAssist line to my User:JasonCarswell/common.js but I can't seem to use it or even find it under the "More" section. Any hints or tips? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Also, I'm retracing my earlier disambiguation edits to better direct them but I'm finding many of them are changed. I think we are overlapping. What's the best solution? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made a start using DisamAssist. The order in which it presents pages looks random but is probably the same for everyone (e.g. oldest first). That does tend to make us trip over each other. In particular I'll have been shown the pages you already changed to add " (disambiguation)", though not those you changed to some other link. I skipped or wasn't shown 11 of them: list. Do you want to carry on from here while I do something else for a while? Certes (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for promptly replying. I have a bunch of things...

• I don't know why my DisamAssist isn't working. Everything I've done thus far is manual. I hope there's a better way.
• I was only trying to go back through those I'd already half-changed to fix them properly. But I have a new idea...
• There are two pages of lists, you can take the first with dash and I'll take the second without dash:

• Pages that link to "Open-source"
• Pages that link to "Open source"

• I'm guessing you were editing the disamb articles (some of which I'd "fixed") randomly rather than going through my history. If you were going through my history, that's fine but I'd like to know so I don't do it over to catch the ones I missed. Or maybe I should just skip it as they're mostly disamb and we should catch them anyways. Whadyu think?
• Someone moved Open source (disambiguation) to Open source which seems good, however...

• I don't know if or how that might affect our "mission".
• I don't know if the Open-source (with dash) and other related things are redirected or need addressing.

• I was going to add a thing to the disambiguation page and somewhere along the line the context of a specific line was utterly distorted and placed out of context. I mention this only because you had part in adjusting it. This is the proper context:

• Free and open-source software, or (FOSS) or (FLOSS), is Free/Libre referring to freedom not the price

"Free and open" should not to be confused with "public ownership" (state ownership), "deprivatization" (nationalization), nor anti-privatization.

Granted the "anti-privatization" should be "anti-privatization", but someone moved it up to "Software, Not to be confused with state ownership or nationalization." which makes no sense at all. While out of character for a disamb page, it is a critical distinction that needs to be present on this disamb. So I've reverted and tweaked it with a note, but I'm open to feedback if you object.

• Let me know if there's anything else I missed or should or can do to help.
• I don't know why my DisamAssist isn't working. (Repeated in case you forget.) Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DisamAssist saves loads of time and it's worth trying to fix. Your common.js looks right. Do you have a "More" tabs next to Read - Edit - View History at the top of the page? If so then (on a disambiguation page) select More → Disambiguate links. (Ignore Page → Tools → Disambiguate links, if you have that: it's DabLinks, which is a great tool for a different job.) If that doesn't work then please let me know which bit is missing.

I can take the with-dash links. DisamAssist will put up both but I can skip those without a dash.

I was editing articles suggested by DisamAssist. I didn't go through your history, as I was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid duplicating your work.

Yes, moving Open source (disambiguation) to Open source is good per WP:MALPLACED. The only effect on our "mission" is that we can no longer use DisamAssist to fix links to Open source (disambiguation). There are only 11 of those, and some may well be correct. Would you like to look at the 11 first, as DisamAssist won't help us there?

A bot has fixed redirects such as Open-source to point directly to Open source (rather than to Open source (disambiguation), which is now itself a redirect).

Yes, the bit about FOSS no longer makes sense. Maybe it should be in a {{confuse}} hatnote. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that "free and open source" means open source (in some sense defined on the dab) plus free (in some sense), and it's not really Open source's job to distinguish free speech from free beer.

Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: I was about to write you when I found you'd already written. So I accidentally found the DisamAssist. I was finessing the Open source page and glimpsed in a hover over the "More" tab. I feel stupid. Of course you put a DisamAssist on the disambiguation pages. I was looking for it on pages from those 2 lists I linked above. So now I can see why I came at it all from the wrong direction. As far as the dash or no dash, forget it all. So sorry for wasting your time. Thanks for the trouble of writing all that. I can handle the 11.

I guess I've got to explore these other tools too.

Your comments made me reassess and I feel I've fixed the FOSS but I'm open to further discussion if you think it can be improved.

I think as far as disambiguation goes, I agree that concise clarity is key, but so does removing confusion and this is terribly misunderstood by most folks.

I also feel I've fixed an issue with "As software" and "In agriculture..." that someone else changed, and I made my argument in a code note why if anyone considers changing it. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

@Certes: I don't think DisamAssist is working correctly. I've tried several times to edit a dozen or two then when I close it said, every time, that it was saving only 2 edits. WTF? Also, I'd done the same ones several times.

Also, after going through these I'm finding that the context doesn't really matter much and that most of them are to software, occasionally license, rarely model, and little or none others, while more often than those last two I find myself going in to extend the "open source" to also include the word following it, like software or license.

I can't tell if my sudden lack of enthusiasm is because I hit a wall and need a nap or if this moot disambiguation problem is legit. Initially I felt partly responsible for breaking links or whatever, but now I think it's just inherent ambiguous usage of the term that everyone already uses non-specifically that I've accidentally unveiled with the wiki machine.

I feel bad for promising the world, but now I think the world won't care if I don't correct it's grammar. For whatever it's worth, I'm still sympathetic to the disambiguation warriors correcting this issue. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Also, I'll get to the more than 11 tomorrow. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your contributions show dozens of successful fixes using DisamAssist. The way it works is a bit unusual: it saves edits automatically but buffers the last two so you can Undo them. When you finish and click Close, it saves the last two; the others have already been saved. (There's also a limit of one save per 5 seconds so, if you click fast, a queue of more than two can form.) If you stop and restart later, any pages you've skipped will be presented again before moving on to the later ones that you've not seen yet. You shouldn't see pages you fixed again, but you will see pages you decided not to fix.

An alternative is to reformat Open source as a broad concept article, in which case links could continue to point there. Even if we go down that route, we're still improving Wikipedia by, for example, linking a statement like "MediaWiki is open source" to the specific article on open-source software rather than to one about open source in general. Certes (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Broad concept article (BCA) continued...

@Certes: Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the DisamAssist should have a little User Manual or further description. I quoted us at User talk:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist#Mini Usage Guide?. I hope you don't mind. Most of my DisamAssist edits I gave a triple check just to be sure because I'd rather be correct with less than mostly correct with more, but some were obvious and quick. And I skipped a bunch because I couldn't tell. The 5 second rule makes sense but it is limiting. I didn't like seeing the ones I'd passed on again.

I read that broad concept thing and it sounds perfect, I think. I have a few ideas...

• If I'm not mistaken, it would retain its disambiguation-ness - and tag?
• Is there something else (ie. tag, notice, declaration, etc) that needs to be done to be a "Broad-concept article"? Or just on the talk page?
• We don't really need to change the page/list, though brief summary paragraphs may be added to each section, and of course the 3(4) main usages (license, model, software, and FOSS).
• I'd get a kick if Open source were added to Wikipedia:Broad-concept article#Common examples. If I were to add it it might attract constructive assistance, or (in my opinion) butcher editing - of which I'm always afraid - editors with their rigged rules and stuff claiming to "simplify" when they're censoring and deleting information down to stubs (meanwhile Evel Knievel's page is book length because it's not important). I've decided to propose it under Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article#Examples.

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Broad concept articles are not disambiguation pages. A BCA is about one (broad) topic, whereas a dab lists topics which may be unrelated except for the name clash (Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology), …). Links to BCAs don't show up on the "links to dabs" reports, which is a double-edged sword: we don't feel obliged to fix them, but such links might be better directed to a subtopic.

A BCA is an article, so the page should be rewritten as prose rather than lists and become subject to the usual requirements such as sourcing. It would lose the disambiguation tag. We could give the talk page tags like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} from Talk:Open-source model. But I'm a WikiGnome rather than an article writer.

We should probably summarize these thoughts on Talk:Open source and inform relevant projects such as WT:WikiProject Open and WT:WikiProject Disambiguation to get a wider audience before boldly changing anything.

Other opinions are available. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: So I went back and tried to discover how I got reversed, or rather thought it was more of an expanded disamb, but I can't nail it down where. I'm not the only one as others are also confused in the Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article. It might have been the "A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual." This time I took a look at the format of the examples and get a better idea.

I am all for expanding it to a BCA as long as it doesn't loose the majority of the collected information there now.

Also, I won't be able to do it with any speed (could take a month or even more for it to even out and calm to a din), though I expect others might help.

And as a BCA I'm guessing it would relieve the alarms about disamb links.

I'm going to archive this conversation in my User archives and copy it to Talk:Open source as I believe you had the good idea to do so (as I'd been thinking about for a while but I'd already pointed other places to here). If this move is a mistake please forgive me and I'll undo it. I'll try to address the summaries from there after this move.

I've enjoyed our conversations and greatly appreciate your help and knowledgeable experience. I hope to grow up to be a WikiGnome like you. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A good way to start a broad concept article from a dabconcept disambiguation page is to take the lede paragraphs from each article that most reflects the broad concept representing the primary topic, and then chisel away any parts that are redundant between them. bd2412 T 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412 and Certes: Is there a tag, hatlink, banner or whatev to indicate that a disamb page is in transition to a BCA? Or is one expected to make a giant leap all at once? Also, might it be good to copy the current short-ish Open source to Open source (disambiguation) if the former were to become a lengthy BCA or is that just over redundant?

Also, I'm thinking of moving most of the "Open" stuff in the "See also" up to appropriate places above only if they contain the spirit of the meanings, and/or, because many of them have "Open-source" redirects. For example, Open-source data redirects to Open data. Something needs to be added regarding "Open" as an occasional truncation of "Open-source" but I feel I have to think about it a bit.

(I usually prefer to display the direct target, yet there are exceptions. For example,

• should not to be confused with public ownership, deprivatization, or anti-privatization, nor transparency.

is much better than

• should not to be confused with state ownership, nationalization, or anti-corporate activism, nor transparency (behavior).

because some things get lost in translation/redirection.) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: {{Broad-concept article}} marks a dab which should be considered for conversion to a BCA. Putting that on whilst conversion is progress should get the message across.

Yes, "See also" is a last resort. Writing some prose about how those articles are relevant to open source would be better.

A separate dab is only needed if "open source" has meanings beyond the broad concept of source that's open. For example, we could put Open Source (radio show) on it. However, that's the only such article that I can find, so we should use a hatnote instead. In fact, Open Source (capital S) still redirects to Open-source model. That redirect is used in about 300 articles and the {{User Open Source}} userbox, and we may want to be bold and retarget it to the BCA once its conversion is complete. Certes (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes, BD2412, and Wbm1058: All very good to know. Thanks. I agree with everything you said, including the "Open" stuff, to which I'd also add something on "Libre".

Open-Source (capital S and dash) also still redirects to Open-source model.

Someone jumped the gun and added a {{dabconcept}} before we decided what to do then someone else reverted it with:

sorry, no, the problem here is that the primary topic is wikt:open source. we already have too many closely-related competing "broad concepts" here; don't encourage the creation of yet another. the problem here is WP:OVERLINKing. Would be like saying open and source both needed to be broad concepts too. These all need disambiguated to [[open source <something>]] more specific.

I have mixed feelings about this. I like brevity but I also prefer not to hunt and dig for information, especially for such a broad and important topic as this.

I kinda think BCAs for open and source might be too simple general concepts/terms/words (where Wiktionary suffices), though I suspect they might benefit with a brief contextual sentence linked to this open-source BCA, assuming it gets made.

There already are lists of open source this and that but maybe there needs to be a "master" Open source list so this lengthy disambiguation list can be trimmed down and re(disambiguation)ed while this Open source becomes a BCA? Is this idea good, bad or ugly?

I have many other wiki projects I'm working on or tweaking, on WP and beyond, when I can, but I suspect this unintentional snowball may be one of the most important page I've swept up by and "adopted" - or been allowed to (I was censored/banned for 2017 for being "another polite truther" in a world of lies, exploitation, phony wars, false histories, and giant criminal secret agencies accountable to no one). This will be a big BCA and I tend to dive in and not stop until I finish or get distracted or pulled away, though this one is more important - I just don't know I want to do it in the near future, however long it may take.

One thing I should know how to do properly, but I don't know the correct terminology for it, is to copy/paste from other Wikipedia articles. What's this called? And is there a name for the process of editing/refining it down, and when is it no longer "plagurism" after I edit/mangle their original words/research/citations/etc.?

Out of curiosity, do you use Visual Editing or Source Editing? I like the precision of source but wonder if I should actually try the visual editing for assumed conveniences. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Let's be very clear here. If this is going to be a disambiguation page, which is basically an index of terms with titles matching the ambiguous term, then it will be formatted to conform with the editing guidelines for disambiguation pages. That means about 2/3 of the content currently on the page will be removed, leaving only a bare list of links to things known specifically as "Open source" and excluding non-matching titles like "Open-design movement", and partial title matches like "Open Source Geospatial Foundation", "Open Source Cinema", and everything under the "Organisations" header, as well as all the portal links, the "See also" section, and all categories not related to the disambiguation function of the page. If this is something other than a disambiguation page, then those things can remain. bd2412 T 20:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: Does this mean you endorse both, a trimmed disambiguation page with a broad concept article? Should we vote? Or just be bold? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now done most of this. Some further reduction may be warranted to the extent that remaining titles are not synonymous with the disambiguated title. There appear to be two genuinely ambiguous topics, a radio show and a 1960s rock song, although the song does not appear in the target article, and if it is not mentioned there, should be removed for failing to meet WP:DABMENTION. If the only topic actually ambiguous to the phrase is the radio show, then we have an effective WP:TWODABS situation, and the page should be deleted altogether. bd2412 T 20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, TLDR, but, most broadly speaking, virtually everything here is a partial title match, so is not valid for a "pure" disambiguation. So the way to make it pure is to replace it with {{Wiktionary redirect}} or delete it entirely. Editors simply should not be linking to [[open source]], that's like linking to slightly (we do have several two-words titles that begin with that word). We've tried avoiding this issue by forcing a primary topic for too long now, I guess, so time to bite the bullet 'cause software isn't the undisputed primary topic anymore. I started working on this the other day and I'll get back to it now. Here's the 35 edits I've already made; browse through them to see my solutions. Note that sometimes the solution doesn't even incude the word "source" as that's optional: [[open-source]] data → open data. This should be done even if someone does take the time to merge snippets from everything on the current dab to make a comprehensive broad article because WP:SPECIFICLINK. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Can't you just make all these partial title matches a WP:Set index? wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages disambiguate specific phrases, not the concepts they might imply. Yes, we could restore the untrimmed version of the phrase as a set index. I'm not convinced that the previous redirect is, in fact, not the primary topic. When the dust settles, if there is no consensus for a specific course of action, we may well end up restoring the status quo ante, which is the redirect to Open-source software. bd2412 T 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been addressed. There was an edit conflict and long short, I'm pasting it here for posterity. I tried to say the following few paragraphs...

@BD2412: Bold indeed. But I think where I admittedly went overboard with links, assuming we'd discuss and whittle it down, I see you went overboard cutting back. When I started it was because I found a profound lack of information here. Now the size of your current cutback version is almost identical to the one I started from, but your version is vastly better than that one IMHO (I don't know why the TOC was on the right but now it's obvious it's better "normal"), though I think you went too far. Why do all the Organizations and See also and every list have to go? And the Wiktionary link. I've seen far bigger disambiguation pages for more trivial things. Obviously I put lots of effort into this page and intend to on the BCA, and I care about this topic so I'm invested more than usual. Normally I don't mind when other work is edited as I either don't think it's important, worth debating, or it's actually an improvement. So I'm unfamiliar how to proceed. How do we civilly hash this out? Or do I just make bold changes again? I don't want to get into an edit war but I also strongly feel far too much has been tossed.

Since it seems that a BCA is eminent I'd also like to ask your expertise on the following... While discovering so many of the "open source" related links I came across a lot of stubs and it seems to me many, though not all of them, might be folded into the BCA and/or "unified collection(s)" for lack of a better term. For example, a new "Open source organizations" article of items formerly under "Organizations", could absorb a bunch of otherwise semi-random stubs, subcategorized into appropriate sections (ie. license, model, movement, software, etc).

Also, what do you think of a "Open source lists" which could be more like "my" version of the disambiguation but with even more links and lists and the contents of the "See also" with "Open" and "Libre" type things listed too? I'm not sure I should be asking, or even asking you, or if I should rather just be bold. Maybe Certes will weigh in. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think others have covered the question, but as I've been invited to respond... Firstly, thanks to BD2412 and others for making the page vastly more usable and recognisable as a dab, and for fixing many incoming links. My apologies for not finding time to do more of that work myself. We seem to have three main options now:

#Keep the page in its current form and deal with the remaining incoming links. Surprisingly I can't find pages with phrases such as "open source software": I was going to start fixing them in a semi-automated way but perhaps some kind person got there first.

1. Replace by a BCA. That might be slightly better but is less necessary now that the page has improved, and the current list of topics may be easier to navigate than a wall of prose.

#Convert to a set index article. With minimal effort, that would do the job of a dab page but legitimise the remaining incoming links. On the negative side, these topics aren't really a set in the same way as ships called HMS Example.

I think any of the three works, and we have time to canvass other opinions. Certes (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: YES!!! That's what I'm talking about - a "Set index". I think. When I mentioned "Open source lists" in the paragraph above. Also, I don't understand what the 35 edits are about. Can you please explain a bit about what you're doing? Are you also creating a BCA? I wonder because you said, "I started working on this the other day and I'll get back to it now." (FYI I haven't started a BCA yet, waiting for feedback.) Also, I don't think "slighly" compares to the broad "open source" concepts, variations, applications, generalities, and specifics. "Freedom" might be a better comparison. (George Carlin joke: "If fire fighters fight fire, then what to freedom fighters fight?") Yes the "Open-source" without the "Source" as implied or actually redirected was a dilemma for me, so that's why a significant part of the "See also" section was so huge. On reflection I should have been more selective about adding all the "Peer-to-peer" things but I figured they could be trimmed rather than deleted with the rest of the related links.

What is the "status quo ante"? It seems clear to me there needs to be a BCA and I think we can at least reach a consensus on that, if not much much more, I'm hoping. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of the redirect open-source, which had previously redirected to one of the articles. bd2412 T 22:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're referring to. Why were so many links cut that were very valid? It's almost like you're suppressing open source. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but a common name popped into my mind and I got a loooooooooong disambiguation list on my first try: John Taylor. I'm certainly not going to chop off names for brevity - so why were legitimately named "open source" and "open-source" and even "open" (with open-source redirects), and all but one related see also links removed? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So, I just noticed Open Source (radio show), I guess that means we can't just redirect this to Wiktionary, hah hah. About this time I usually think of checking Britannica to see how they handle Open source... so they say it's a social movement, sounds good to me, Open source (social movement). Maybe that's our problem– no article there. Not all those 35 edits actually are on-topic, as I'm easily distracted so there's a bit of unrelated stuff there. Basoically I'm making edits to stop those pages from linking to here. Examples:

• the French lab's [[open-source]] technological creation → the French lab's [[Open source technology|open-source technological]] creation
  • maybe Open source technology should have a link to open source
• Emacs is among the oldest free & open source projects still under development → Emacs is among the oldest [[free and open source]] projects still under development
• the first major mapping site to embrace [[open-source]] mapping → the first major mapping site to embrace [[open data|open-source mapping data]]
• MediaWiki development has generally favored the use of [[open-source]] media formats → MediaWiki development has generally favored the use of [[open format|open-source media format]]s

The problem with the "primary topic" is that editors keep arbitrarily changing it to "more accurate redirect"... there's no consensus on what's the "most accurate". wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:I like the idea of a Open source (social movement), or more simply a Open source movement, beyond a Open-source-software movement. But I was first assuming to kind of either implicitly or explicitly fold that all under an Open source BCA that could be further expanded upon after, by you or whomever. So you're de-disamb-ing, correct? Not working on a BCA? Are you in favour of a BCA?

A list of "open source" stuff with all of them on it is what I'm talking about. On my old over-linked disamb there were many "open source" with "technology" but I missed "Open source technology". Then again, actually I just checked and "Open source technology" just redirects to "Open source model". I don't see why OST can't be redirected to OS. Much of the problem with the redirects is folks were forcing it into a category like license, model, or software when it's also a general term, movement, and so much more - which is why I felt compelled to start improving it. Wbm1058, I salute you. You're actually going through and assessing the context and correcting them. I did a bunch the other day until I couldn't think straight. Half of them are obvious, the rest take consideration and/or I skipped.

After considering the "more accurate redirect" dilemma, it seems that if a "Open source" BCA were created, until most of the thousands of disambiguation issues are made "more accurate", when in question the redirect should be herded to the disambiguation page to be collected and made "more accurate". For example, "Open source", "Open-source", "Open sourced", "Open source technology", etc. It may take years to clear most of them up after which the default can be shifted from the disambiguation to the "Open source" BCA. Though it now occurs to me that maybe a disamb and a BCA simultaneously might not be ideal. Thoughts? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not against you writing a broad-concept that merges together everything into coherent prose, if you're up to it. Not something I have time to tackle now. Just "disambiguating" to more specific links appropriate for the context in which the term is used in specific articles will be time-consuming enough. It's not just software anymore... hardware too, and data (Wikidata)! And other stuff too. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Open source" literally means that that source code is open to the public. When people talk about making an open-source structure or object or contents of data sets, it is literal nonsense, because these things don't have a source code. They are just backforming the phrase to apply to things to which it doesn't naturally apply. To the extent that this is a real-world phenomenon, we should be explaining that this is what happened, and how it happened, rather than merely spilling forth a list of things to which the term has come to be applied. bd2412 T 23:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, the Britannica article covers the origins in computer programming. Scroll down to the bottom of that and they mention Wikipedia "operates under an open-source management style" in the LEARN MORE section. wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BCA Draft

I have created Draft:Open source with pieces of the main articles in this genre. Let's see what we can do with that. bd2412 T 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It may have started referring to code but "Open source" can now easily be interpreted as "Open to the public" "Open concept" or "Open origins" where later versions may be open or proprietary, with or without restrictions. Regardless if it applies to virtual code or theoretical licences or to physical objects the term and concept is evolving like all language. Open-source curriculum, Open-source governance, Open politics, Open-source religion, and Open-source unionism are new virtual concepts, and Open-source appropriate technology, Open-source architecture, Open-source cola, Open Source Ecology, Open-source hardware, Open-source product development, and Open-source robotics are new real-world examples. The first instance, "Open source code" has truncated to "Open source", now further truncated to "Open" (concept). More words after "Open" help specify it's usage (ie. open door vs open source) but "Open source" has outgrown those old narrow less accurate definitions.

BD2412, thanks for starting the draft. I'd forgotten about drafts. I'd like to help. It's a little overwhelming. Can you please point to example articles worth emulating? I feel like there are a few sections to create. I don't know what the proper collaborative process is like, but I'm going to wing it and hope I don't bother anyone with my efforts. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I did some stuff to start. I didn't want to dominate it, nor over do it, nor do a lot that gets chopped so I'm going to rest and hope others build on it and/or add feedback. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do feel free to dominate it for a while. For some guidance, I have a collection of broad concept articles that I wrote to replace disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone like conspiracy theories in any serious and/or whimsical way you might take a look at today's front page of Wikipedia where you'll prominently find:

* "Triangle" is the third episode of the sixth season of the American science fiction television series The X-Files.

* Did you know... ...that the Ha! Ha! Pyramid (pictured), a monument commemorating a flood in La Baie, Quebec, is covered in 3,000 yield signs described by the designer as being similar to the Greek delta?

Yet they obviously omitted:

* November 22, 1963 – U.S. President John F. Kennedy is assassinated and Texas Governor John Connally is seriously wounded by Lee Harvey Oswald, who also killed Dallas Police officer J. D. Tippit after fleeing the scene. U.S Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as the 36th President of the United States afterwards.

Is it accident, coincidence, conspiracy, or tomfoolery? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: You mentioned earlier the possibility of a BCA here absorbing a bunch of stubs. Do you have some particular stubs in mind? bd2412 T 21:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

2016 moves

Looking at the logs helped refresh my memory of the last time I was involved in this headache-inducing topic:

• 05:35, 11 March 2016 Fgnievinski moved page Open source to Open-source model over redirect
• 16:21, 3 November 2016 Wbm1058 moved page Open-source model to Open source (reverting bold move, per Talk:Open source#Reversing the bold move of 11 March 2016
• 00:25, 17 November 2016 Wbm1058 moved page Open source to Open-source model (per Talk:Open-source model#Reversing the bold move of 11 March 2016)

Really frustrating to see that all of that effort from two years ago was for naught, and find that we have an even less stable situation today. I'm giving up on this, to focus on easier stuff to fix. wbm1058 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How can we assure that, after the draft becomes the primary topic, as another article in addition to the "model", "license" and "software" articles, that two years from now someone doesn't drive by here and boldly move it to open source (term) because they decide that either "model" or "software" is the primary topic? From looking at how overlinked [[open source]] is, I think the only way to assure that the "primary topic" links are not mislinks is to assume the bare minimum "modern dictionary" meaning of the term: not (!) closed source. Well, interestingly enough in the other direction software is assumed to be primary, but proprietary is ambiguous; I'd think that Ownership would be the primary topic for that. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It could be argued that Draft:Open source and open-source model have similar enough scope to be merged. If a discussion now, with suitably wide participation, decides on the right destination for "open source", then any drive-by moves later can be quickly reverted, with an invitation to start a new discussion if something relevant has changed. Certes (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The history of drive-by changes can be brought to a halt with a consensus-based decision for a solution, which would then require discussion and consensus to change. Also, re: Proprietary, I have previously initiated Draft:Proprietariness, which will eventually resolve that issue. bd2412 T 15:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The dictionaries cited above are clear: the primary topic is open-source software. The rest are less popular generalizations and extrapolations of this more specific concept. fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Open source → Open source (disambiguation) – There is a clear broad-concept primary topic for this term, that being the concept of the information allowing the replication or modification of something being open to the public, for which Draft:Open source is in good enough shape to move to mainspace. As it stands, there are thousands of incoming disambiguation links which in many cases can't be fixed because they appear to refer to the broad concept rather than one of its narrow iterations. The only actually ambiguous concepts listed on the disambiguation page are a relatively obscure radio show, and a song which thus far fails WP:DABMENTION. Move this page to make way for the broad concept article. bd2412 T 03:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Clearly the primary topic over the song that as noted we don't even have mention never mind an article. Yes the article probably needs a bit of work to comply with NOTDIC but I'd say its good enough now. Note that the DAB page is currently marked as a level 5 vital article and that Particle was at AFD but is a level 4 vital article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. There is also Open Source, which redirects to Open-source model and has 1500 incoming links. Narky Blert (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional comment. I have been bookmarking pages which have links to open source flagged as {{dn}}, so cleaning those tags up after a move will be easy. Narky Blert (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It's a broad concept but a clear primary topic. The next best alternative would be to merge the draft into Open-source model and move that page to (or make a primary redirect from) Open source. The radio show deserves a hatnote. Also retarget Open src, Open-Source, OpenSource, Opensource, etc. Whatever its result, thank you for raising this RM. Changing the destination of Open source seems like a reasonable thing to do but can cause problems, and we need a consensus to point to if it happens again. Certes (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral on the proposed solution, but only because I haven't been following the debate and feel unable to post a reasoned opinion. Support any solution which helps readers. I've looked at a few of the links-in, and found some of them impossible to decipher even after reading the article and the citations.

This problem must have been there for years without anyone noticing until JasonCarswell disturbed the flat stone it had been festering under. Narky Blert (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support the primary topic, as well as pointing the redirects suggested by User:Certes to the primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 18:45, 30 November 2018 (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.