Talk:Ubuntu

Good article review

Ubuntu (operating system)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted.–--Retrohead (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of single sentences, poorly structured, although reasonably well referenced. Might be salvageable if somebody wants to take it on. James^x12345 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any significant progress, so I'm delisting it. The article really needs one person to bring it together to a coherent whole, as it is there is a lot of redundant information and a large number of single sentence paragraphs. James^x12345 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

New Ubuntu Logo, not yet updated

https://ubuntu.com/ https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/03/ubuntu-has-a-brand-new-logo

Not updating the logo yet, as neither the home page nor the brand guidelines have been updated. https://design.ubuntu.com/brand/ubuntu-logo/

Leaving this here for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ce:6f13:c400:92e:440b:1ad3:a84e (talk)

"Ubufox" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ubufox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Ubufox until a consensus is reached. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Licensing Obfuscation

Under license theres a link to "Free software" which is a badly written article. It does not become clear to a layman that in general a modified Ubuntu cannot be freely distributed! The article here should clearly mention in a separare section that there are restrictions to be aware of. At the moment it reads like a Canonical marketing campaign. 2A02:1210:2E1A:500:506D:BAC0:41A0:AB97 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see https://askubuntu.com/questions/219/under-what-license-is-ubuntu-can-it-be-legally-modified-and-distributed. I've added "except trademarks" to the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Ubuntu → Ubuntu (operating system)
• Ubuntu (disambiguation) → Ubuntu

– No clear WP:Primary topic. Page views are 1561 for the computer system, 798 for the philosophy (Ubuntu (philosophy)). The philosophy also likely has more long term significance. Edit: this used to be the case until the philosophy was bold moved to Ubuntu philosophy and an RM that moved this from Ubuntu (operating system) to the current title. I’ve reverted the bold move per WP:RMUM as its common name is Ubuntu. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Could ALL the numerous previous discussions ate various venues be linked for convenience please? DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  They are listed under the talk headers. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, there were further discussions that aren't listed there, eg at Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_11#Link_away_from_disambiguation and Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_11#Return_to_disambiguation_page. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more. FWIW I would support the proposed move, but I am sick and tired of the mess. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I should’ve given a history of the discussion in the nomination, sorry. I’ll edit it now Kowal2701 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Further discussions: Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 7#Redirect from Ubuntu? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence anything has changed since the previous move requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per User:Pppery. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

    Something has clearly changed, the philosophy has been moved back to Ubuntu which voids the main reason for this page’s move in the last RM Kowal2701 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Being the first distro for accessible Linux has obvious significance, while I'm not sure what the significance with the ethics concept is (though I am in the Anglosphere indeed). Plus, the only other competent contenders for the PT have natural disambiguation already, and this gets overwhelmingly more pageviews than any other topic. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:Primary topic says an article has long term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. which greatly favours the philosophy imo Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then, I am asking what the enduring educational value is compared to the Linux distro. Actually, the academic results provided by Hameltion below are quite convincing. I'll think about this. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I am still convinced that Ubuntu has a lot of significance as shown in academia, I am more convinced by Aoidh's Neptune example, which is also studied in academia. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neptune the planet has 4.5x the page views and dominates the first pages on Google Scholar Kowal2701 (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and move Ubuntu (philosophy) back to Ubuntu philosophy per WP:NATURAL, which the last move was contingent on. Nardog (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ooh, I didn't notice that. How should we handle this clearly related move? Revert it and add it to the list of proposals made by @Kowal2701? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's common name is Ubuntu in sources. I was reverting an undiscussed move per WP:RMUM. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:Natural disambiguation only has to be commonly called that way; it doesn't have to be the common name. Plus, your RMUM reasoning is a bit shaky, as it's contingent on "the new title has not been in place for a long time". Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good points, “Ubuntu philosophy” does appear commonly enough to be a natural disambiguator although it’s far from ideal. I still think Ubuntu should be a disambiguation page but can’t support that with policy. Ubuntu Linux appears commonly in sources, so we could give this topic the disambiguator. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'd be fine with naturaling both this and the philosophy, freeing up "Ubuntu" as a disambig page. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That does seem like it's the fairest thing to do, although I'm not sure others would support it. The lack of guidance at WP:Natural regarding assigning the disambiguator makes this a bit tricky. Is it worth withdrawing this RM and starting a new one with that proposal? Or does that cross the line regarding use of community time? Alternatively we could wait a few months Kowal2701 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is common for the outcome of an RM discussion to be different from simply accepting or rejecting what was originally proposed. It is thus not necessary to create a separate RM discussion to consider every possible outcome. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thing is, I don't see an easy way to get the current (and inactive) participants to focus on the new target because it was proposed quite late into the process. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  In case this manages to gain consensus, I support this course of action. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Nomination is sound. There are two prongs to determine a primary topic, usage and significance. We usually use pageviews for usage: here the operating system has an edge of 72% to 28%, which is solid (though falls to 66% to 34% since 2020). I like to use scholarly search results to measure significance, which should help avoid personal biases, and here the philosophy performs very strongly: it monopolizes the first pages of results for ubuntu on Google Scholar, ProQuest, and Jstor; the operating system does better on Google Books. I'd be interested to see other academic search engines tested. (As an aside, the philosophy isn't naturally called "ubuntu philosophy"; the parentheses make sense.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The Linux distribution's article has greater traffic, but weighed against that is the African philosophy's "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (per WP:PT2). It's also good to recognize that while the Linux OS may be more familiar to the largely Western, Anglophonic, and computer-savvy editorship, the proposal is more in line with the project's stated goals of reducing systemic bias. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article's subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word Ubuntu in regard to both usage and traffic. When considering long-term significance for the English language, ubuntu the philosophical concept did not have any real significance in the English language outside of a few isolated usages before the 1990s, let alone long-term significance. Its English-language significance grew only in the 2000s after the Linux distribution was released, which introduced the word and the concept to a wider English-speaking audience. While the philosophical concept is older than the Linux distribution, the concept does not have anything close to substantially greater enduring notability and educational value, which is similar to why Neptune is the article for the planet, despite being named after the much older concept of Neptune (mythology). Being an older topic is not sufficient to create long-term significance. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that the philosophy has a much greater educational value. The operating system, while important, doesn’t have nearly as much scholarly attention, which implies it’s educational value is dwarfed by the philosophy, making the philosophy have overall greater long term significance despite them having similar enduring notability. The reason Neptune the planet is the primary topic is because it gets 95,000 page views, compared to the god’s 20,000 Kowal2701 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Google Scholar results do not support an implied long-term significance for the philosophical concept and in fact does the opposite, showing a lack of long-term significance. It makes sense that a philosophical concept would have more Google Scholar results than a Linux distribution, that itself implies nothing. That single metric (which by nature is skewed towards certain fields) is not in and of itself a measure of educational value any more than educational value is a measure of long-term significance, especially when viewed through the lens of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY's other deterministic methods. Google Scholar results also reinforce the lack of long-term significance for the philosophical context, as most of the results occur after the 1990s, with only about 1,670, or ~0.3976% of the ~420,000 results being published prior to that date. It was not until page 10 of results for ubuntu did I find a single result from before the late 1990s (being 1989), and I could not find another such result even after looking through 60 pages of results. Using Neptune as an example again, the very first result for me was from 1989, with results from 1980 to 2020 in the first page alone. If there's long-term significance for the philosophical concept then Google Scholar, the metric best situated to skew in favor of such a field, does not show it. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, while long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. As for why Neptune is the primary topic, unless you can show that there was a move discussion where a consensus determined that page views were the sole reason, that is simply not the case. - Aoidh (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  You’re talking past me. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. There are two factors for long term significance, enduring notability and educational value. The point is that Ubuntu has a much greater educational value per Google Scholar because it dominates searches for Ubuntu, which makes it have a greater long term significance despite them having similar enduring notability. The Neptune example is actually a point against the operating system because it is evidence of greater enduring notability not being important. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  If enduring significance is not important, then the primary topic would be decidedly the distro, which has far, far more page views. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Usually pages need a 2:1 ratio to be a primary topic and that isn’t the case (just), they have similar enduring notability in English language sources with Linux having a slight lead, and the greater educational value of the philosophy pushes it into ‘unclear’ Kowal2701 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Usually pages need a 2:1 ratio to be a primary topic is not accurate. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY states that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. The pageview numbers you cite in your initial comment show that this is the case for the Linux distro, and WikiNav shows that the views aren't being inflated because any significant portion of readers are trying to find Ubuntu philosophy and are instead landing at the page for the distro. This article's subject meets the criteria for WP:PT1. - Aoidh (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  How is it highly likely? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The quote is WP:PT1, which is item 1 of a two-item list, and the second item is WP:PT2, which was not quoted in that comment. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY opens with a statement that "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is". The Wikinav data given above is for the article about the operating system, not a disambiguation page. Wikinav for the disambiguation page shows only a minority of outgoing pageviews going to the operating system, with about 32% of the outgoing views going to the philosophy concept. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are ignoring the Ubuntu page's outgoing pageviews. Of course people going to the disambiguation page aren't going to go to the already-primary topic, and even then, ~41% of the outgoing page views go to the operating system anyways. Compare outgoing for Neptune (disambig) as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Generally, whatever the title situation, people tend to find the article they're interested in. So it shouldn't be surprising that most of the people who are looking at the Ubuntu article are people who are more interested in things related to that topic than in other topics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are attempting to establish that readers want to find the philosophy (hereupon notated as P) leagues more than the distro's page (hereupon notated as U). There are only two findings you could evince that with:

1. (the amount of people who went to U wanting to check out P, optimistically measured by the total number of outgoings to P from U) taking up a majority of U's pageviews
   • This is from the possible argument that people who go to U actually mostly want to go to P.
2. (P's pageviews) being greater than (U's pageviews).
   • This is from your latest argument that people only go to the pages they want to go to.

Patently, none of these are true. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be speculating incorrectly about I am "attempting" to do (if anything), and possibly misinterpreting what I have directly said. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What did you mean by linking to the dab page's WikiNav? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be a good question. I think that people looking at a dab page that is not at a base name are people who are trying to find the topic(s) associated with a term (such as "Ubuntu") that they are interested in. They might be people who have already visited the article that is at the base name (or possibly some other article) and decided that is not the one (or at least not the only one) they are looking for. This contrasts with those who (at least mostly) already know which topic they are interested in. So they are presented with a list of topics from which to choose the one(s) of interest to them. Thus, looking at WikNav data for a disambiguation page could be an indication of which of the candidate topic(s) people are primarily (currently) interested in at a given point in time in situations where that is not already clear. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people would go directly to the dab page. They would click on it from U, and views of the dab page are low anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

(To the both of you) please observe the left side of the top graph in WikiNav - it shows where readers come from, into the clickstream analysis. A lot of them get there from external sources, and we don't know the logic these external sources used to send those people to us. A fair number of them come from the articles about the two major concepts, too, so we likewise can't easily interpret why this happens. --Joy (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters much, especially when U has ~50x the amount of page views of the dab. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All the traffic at the disambiguation page currently is just a tiny fraction of overall Ubuntu traffic, so we can't conclude much by looking at just that. --Joy (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I was going to pull up the pageview stats, but the stats for the philosophy article have a very suspicious dip in mid-October 2017. So instead, here's some overwhelming Google Trends that already include some searches for the Linux distro in the philosophy part Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  About that "suspicious dip" in pageview statistics, did you notice that the article was renamed on 27 October 2017? Please see this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops. I checked the page history but misremembered the turning point as the 17th. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was also a move of the operating system article, illustrated in pageviews here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  All four titles shown here. Overall, it looks like interest in the operating system has been declining by a bit in the last 9 years, while interest in the philosophy concept has not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Directly addressing what I feel are issues with the points you made is not talking past you. You're arguing that the philosophical concept has long-term significance solely because of Google Scholar results, yet even in that metric long term is completely lacking. Before the 1990s this had no significant impact or study in scholarly work, let alone broader audiences and therefore lacks long-term significance, which is what the Google Scholar results unambiguously demonstrate. Google Scholar is also not the determining factor in whether something has educational value any more than arguing that typing Ubuntu into Google Books and finding that the first page consists only of educational books on the Linux distribution should be the only educational metric. Both arguments would require ignoring all other metrics and favoring only a single biased metric, when it is the whole that should be examined. When examined in aggregate, the philosophical concept has nowhere near a much greater educational value. I also disagree about the comparison with Neptune being a point against the operating system since the Neptune example is not evidence of greater enduring notability not being important. - Aoidh (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, you’re arguing on enduring notability, which is not what I’m talking about. Google Scholar is a very good metric for assessing educational value, please provide another one Kowal2701 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you're not arguing about enduring notability then what you're saying has no bearing on how the primary topic is determined. WP:PT2's criteria is substantially greater enduring notability and educational value, not either-or. A tenuous claim of educational value without substantially greater enduring notability is not sufficient, even if it was uncontested that one has substantially greater value than the other, which is not the case here. As for please provide another one I did so in the comment you replied to, to illustrate why selectively looking at just Google Scholar and ignoring other sources is an inaccurate and biased assessment of "educational value" and no part of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline or any prior consensus that I'm aware of suggests that Google Scholar should be or has ever been the determining factor in what constitutes "educational value". Google Scholar may be a good way to help determine educational value, but is not the only metric and should be examined as part of the whole picture, which is precisely where the claim that the philosophical concept has a much greater educational value falls apart. However, even if it was accepted that it did have a much greater educational value, that alone is still not the criteria for WP:PT2. - Aoidh (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well argued Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The philosophy has just as much long-term significance if not more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at some standard indicators for usage. Mass views for all topics linked from the disambiguation page shows it to basically be about these two usual suspects, nothing else really comes close.

WikiNav for Ubuntu shows the hatnote for the philosophy with ~1k clicks in September, at #4, which is quite noticable, though not huge compared to ~50k total views in the same month - that's ~2%, and quite a bit behind the volume of clicks on the first three.

In this case the water is somewhat muddied by the fact it's basically two topics that are interconnected and the lead section of the most popular topic would link to the second most popular one even if we changed the navigation; we can't tell how much of the ~1k volume is from people clicking the hatnote and how much is from people clicking the phrase in the lead section.

Also, there's another 0.2k clicks on the general hatnote, and WikiNav there is not clear, what with all the external traffic and multiple sources of internal traffic. I don't think that we can conclude much from the latter, except perhaps think of this as possibly more ambiguous traffic than the norm, which is not that helpful for the consideration of what is the actual "Ubuntu" proper traffic pattern.

We've had other examples (cf. my post at WT:D) where this level of hatnote traffic wasn't indicative, and if we presented readers with a choice, they might not overwhelmingly click the previously presumed primary topic. Overall page views trend indicates the ratio is about 50 : 30, which is just 1.6 : 1, which isn't quite overwhelming.

With regard to long-term significance, they seem pretty similar, because both topics would seem to be fairly novel to the average English reader.

I generally think this would merit an experiment to move to a simpler list format, and measure again later if the reader navigation outcomes have changed and improved. It's easy enough to revert later if it turns out the vast majority of people end up clicking the operating system anyway.

If there's no consensus for that, a more modest experiment could be to pipe link a special redirect behind the hatnote link, so that we could measure how many people click that and how many click the other one. --Joy (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d support that as a data gathering exercise. WP:Primary topic says A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. “Highly likely” puts the bar quite high in my view. Unfortunately policy isn’t determinative but I’ve seen 2:1 used as the line. Given it’s on the edge of that, this seems to make sense as a course of action. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a rerun of Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 14#Requested move 10 May 2023 and Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 14#8 September 2018 and possibly other discussions. Since then this Linux distribution has continued to increase in significance and in mentions in the literature. This is becoming a perennial proposal. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aoidh. Ubuntu the philosophy is generally unknown in the West and this is the English Wikipedia. Ubuntu the OS is an influential and very popular Linux distribution. Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. I have a degree in Philosophy with a major in Ethics and we never discussed this "philosophy". It seems to be a phenomenologically based ethics, and interesting and I can see several ways in which it would particularly appeal to current new age enthusiasts, but it's still very much on the fringes of Philosophy and not terrible significant. Andrewa (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAFORUM Kowal2701 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2024 (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.

Post move reply

I feel I must reply to this edit.

Kowal2701 suggests that I am raising issues not relevant to the move discussion. I'm well aware of WP:NOTAFORUM to which they link, and which I have just reread, and it seems to me that there is no problem with my post whatsoever.

Other than perhaps that they do not like my views. In which case, they are themselves the ones in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Their comment did not say anything relevant to the move discussion, while mine did.

But while it did not have any affect on the RM result, nor any relevance to it, there is a risk that others will be misled as to what WP:NOTAFORUM actually says and how it applies here. This is why I raise this objection. I am hopeful that the better we understand the policy concerned, the better we will all be equipped to improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, your comment had nothing to do with policy or the RM, you were discussing your views on the philosophy. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My view was It seems to be a phenomenologically based ethics, and interesting and I can see several ways in which it would particularly appeal to current new age enthusiasts, but it's still very much on the fringes of Philosophy and not terrible significant. (Emphasis added) The view that it is very much on the fringes of Philosophy and not terrible significant is in my opinion relevant to the RM in terms of WP:PTOPIC A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. My view that it is of little enduring notability and educational value is relevant surely? Perhaps I should have said that explicitly, but doesn't the view that it is very much on the fringes of Philosophy and not terrible significant mean much the same thing? That's what I was intending to say.

Or is it that I said It seems to be a phenomenologically based ethics, and interesting and I can see several ways in which it would particularly appeal to current new age enthusiasts that you found contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM? Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think linking it to policy would’ve been the right move. Also, I’d advise caution in word choice and against dismissing something like Ubuntu given the historical context, especially at first glance Kowal2701 (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yáll/we all were arguing on the Ubuntu philosophy's significance, and Andrewa was bringing up a personal anecdote that it's insignificant. Not necessarily has much sway, but I wouldn't dismiss it as NotForum. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood, I interpreted “significance” per the colloquial usage rather than wiki terminology. It may be on the fringe of western philosophical discourse but it’s very front and centre in African philosophy as an early contribution of what the continent has to offer Kowal2701 (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused offence. I didn’t want discussion derailed. For what it’s worth, I think no consensus would’ve been a more accurate close, but I argued my case horribly and the opposition certainly had the better of it. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not offended, it is no big deal. I just thought it would improve Wikipedia to clarify the policy. I often admire your diligence and judgement and so I expect do others, which is part of why I thought it important. Arguably it was quibbling, as an auditor by trade and a logician by training I do have both a professional and an academic tendency to split hairs. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

philosophy traffic patterns hatnote vs. article text

So the experiment has been running for a bit now, here's the graph:

• daily page views (latest 20)

It's interesting how there's no major preference for the hatnote so far. --Joy (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

With all that oscillation, it seems too early to conclude anything. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)