 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Turn to disambiguation?
editHi,
I've reverted the change of this page to a disambig. It really doesn't make sense that we would have an article on free and open source software, and yet have the abbreviation of that term point elsewhere. Whatever happens to the parent page, the abbreviation should point to the same place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Classifying my edit as "patently nonsensical" is far from polite. You could have done the same revert without being rude. And your message here is prove of that.
- FOSS is mentioned in both articles, so it is not patently nonsensical to have a solution that acknowledges that (temporary has it may be, pending a possible merge).
- FOSS does not stand for "free and open source software" only, so most likely it will become a disambig sooner or later, as soon as Forum of Small States or Fiber Optic Sensor System or ... (see more). So why quarrel over it's present target?
- (copied from my talk page)
- Nabla (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't, to my knowledge, pre-emptively disambiguate terms in anticipation for future articles. As for the future of the expanded article, there's been a long-term discussion to merge free software and open source software in there, which is why the AfD failed. Making this page point somewhere else would be pre-empting the dissolution of the target, which may not be desirable at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Naturally we do not need nor want to disambiguate terms in anticipation for future articles. I'm simply trying to put the current issue into a new perspective, showing that either solution is likely not to be very lasting. So maybe a mid term solution (even if not really that good, I know) as I proposed could be accepted, as temporary and enabling you to carry on with more productive tasks. I also note that I have no wish to promote the "pre-empting the dissolution of the target", the disambig kept both previous targets. - Nabla (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why there's a need to; this is an unambiguous abbreviation. One of my main tasks just now is consolidation of Wikipedia's vast number of articles on FOSS terminology into a series of unified, centralised pieces. Adding new disambiguation pages makes that more difficult. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that. I just point that using/wasting time over a redirect target does not help either. - Nabla (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't consider this discussion to be a waste of time. :) I think there's a good case for the previous version and that it's only by presenting such a case consistently across the project that anything is ever really going to get done regarding the state of WP's coverage of the subject matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)