Talk:GFDL
GFDL is now a disambiguation page because it also stands for Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. If you are in the habit of linking to this page when referring to the GNU Free Documentation License, I would suggest that you start using the full name instead, or at least an unambiguous redirect like GNU FDL. --Michael Snow 02:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This should not be a disambiguation page. It should be using primary topic disambiguation. anthony (see warning) 16:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- GNU Free Documentation License is only the primary topic associated with GFDL in a navel-gazing, self-referential sort of way. For the average reader who has no familiarity with free software or copyleft licensing, there is no reason GFDL should go directly to one or the other. --Michael Snow 17:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The average reader of Wikipedia does have familiarity with the GFDL. Furthermore, we already have a multitude of links to GFDL. If you want to change this, you need to get consensus, and then fix all the links, first. You have done neither of these things, but have merely unilaterally broken the hundreds of links and then put a note on the pump telling people they have to fix them. anthony (see warning) 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There's no particular reason why the average reader (not editor) should be familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License. I have for quite some time now been in the process of fixing or removing undisambiguated links to GFDL, and nobody has yet objected to this. I did not tell people that they needed to go back and fix the links; if you read the note above that I originally left on the pump, I am telling people what they might do in the future to avoid creating these links, not asking anyone else to go back and fix the old ones. --Michael Snow 19:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- One reason why the average reader is likely to be familiar with the GFDL is because this site is licensed under the GFDL. As for your change, get consensus first. Then fix the rest of the links. Then you can make this change. Otherwise I will continue to revert it. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There's no particular reason why the average reader (not editor) should be familiar with the GNU Free Documentation License. I have for quite some time now been in the process of fixing or removing undisambiguated links to GFDL, and nobody has yet objected to this. I did not tell people that they needed to go back and fix the links; if you read the note above that I originally left on the pump, I am telling people what they might do in the future to avoid creating these links, not asking anyone else to go back and fix the old ones. --Michael Snow 19:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The average reader of Wikipedia does have familiarity with the GFDL. Furthermore, we already have a multitude of links to GFDL. If you want to change this, you need to get consensus, and then fix all the links, first. You have done neither of these things, but have merely unilaterally broken the hundreds of links and then put a note on the pump telling people they have to fix them. anthony (see warning) 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- GNU Free Documentation License is only the primary topic associated with GFDL in a navel-gazing, self-referential sort of way. For the average reader who has no familiarity with free software or copyleft licensing, there is no reason GFDL should go directly to one or the other. --Michael Snow 17:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, how would you like to figure out consensus? Should we try Wikipedia:Requests for comment perhaps? As for fixing the links, I'm not inclined to bother with all the links that are part of old talk page conversations. Almost all of the others are fixed already. A few still show up in What links here, even though they're fixed, because they're transcluded through templates like Template:FOLDOC and the articles haven't been edited since I updated the template. --Michael Snow 19:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I tried the "null edit" trick on the first couple of these and it didn't seem to do the trick. --Phil | Talk 13:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- You can show that there is a consensus how ever you want. RfC might get more people than just the two of us in the conversation, and if a bunch say they support this change and none say they disapprove of it, then I'll concede. anthony (see warning) 23:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why not keep the redirect and add a note about the disambiguation to GNU Free Documentation License? I see no point in making such a highly linked-to page a disambiguation page. Angela. 04:18, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- The new disambiguation note explains the context a little better than the old one did. I still think, however, that considered in encyclopedic terms (rather than internal links or other factors related to editor convenience) there is little justification for claiming that GNU Free Documentation License is the "primary topic" associated with the abbreviation GFDL. On these terms, I believe GFDL should be the disambiguation page, and that not doing this subtly deviates from NPOV in the way that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is supposed to prevent. --Michael Snow 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Considering that Wikipedia styles itself "The Free Encyclopedia", I think it is entirely reasonable to consider GFDL as a primary disambiguation topic (or redirect). There is a tad of bias in privileging the article, but I think that is inherent to the enterprise of building an encylopedia based on GFDL. I don't see that this bias violates NPOV though, it is merely a recognition of the way things are in the current context. older≠wiser 17:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Even if you exclude the word "Wikipedia", a Google search for "GNU Free Documentation License" gets 50 times more hits than "Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory", so it seems clear to me which one ought to be the primary page. Having a redirect point to the more popular page is helpful to readers, not POV. It's no different from having Birmingham, England at Birmingham. Angela. 01:37, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- My perspective is that GFDL has one particular meaning among the small segment of the world that is strongly interested in things like copyleft, and a different meaning among the small segment of the world that is strongly interested in things like meteorology. I don't see a particular reason to assume that one segment is larger or more important than the other, and it should be quite apparent why a Google search is not representative for these two subjects (also, attempts to exclude "Wikipedia" are chancy at best because of how our mirrors are indexed). Birmingham on the other hand is a far more widely familiar name. Anyway, I'm not going to insist on this further, but neither am I inclined to change my opinion. --Michael Snow 07:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- disambiguate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to GNU-FDL. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:38, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
- This should redirect to Gnu Free Documentation License which should in turn have an immediate link to a disambiguation page. This is a perfect case for a primary topic. —Morven 17:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I like the article as it is - GNU FDL article with the disamb ontop in the first line. --ShaunMacPherson 02:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Disambiguate and fix links (which will sadly be a big job). Also, should the 'vote' end up on redirect, perhaps since there's only two articles on the dab page we could change the text at the top of the page to GFDL redirects here. GFDL also stands for The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a division of NOAA.? --fvw 01:07, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- If we leave it as a redirect, I prefer the text currently there. --Michael Snow 02:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- redirect to GNU FDL, by far the more common use. Wolfman 04:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)