Talk:OKD

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. The only thing in support was a WP:VOTE. Everyone else disagreed, citing the fact that there's not really any competition for primary topic; the software is essentially a blip mentioned in a much larger only tangentially related article. (closed by non-admin page mover) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OKD → OKD (company)OKD (company)
• OKD (disambiguation) → OKD

– This is a three-letter acronym also used in a wide variety of fields of endeavor, and this mining company does not appear to be the primary topic for it. Per WP:DPT, we can for example look at:

• All-time monthly page views comparison between the top two meanings shows that it's unlikely that the average English reader strongly associates this term with the company, when the readership of the article about this and other software is 50 times larger (!) than the readership of the article about the latter

• Google Books Ngrams for this and related terms indicate the company is occasionally mentioned, but there's no clear indication that it's the most commonly known topic, let alone more common than all others combined
• With a Google Books search for OKD, in the first 10 results I only get 1 that mentions the company, 2 that mention the software, and 7 others

I already disambiguated a handful of incoming links and disambiguated it, but the move was then reverted as "potentially controversial". I don't quite see the controversy, but let's have a formal discussion just in case.

The other 'issue' was that the OKD software doesn't have a standalone article, but that's not relevant as it meets the standard of WP:DABMENTION.

All in all, when even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic, I don't think there can be a genuine discussion about there being a primary topic by usage.

With regard to long-term significance, I don't think there can be any substantial advantage for a nationally-known company that is not active in the English-speaking parts of the world, when compared to internationally-known software in English usage. Even if it is technically 10 times older, both are generally recent.

Plus the language and the airport in other parts of the world, too. This acronym is simply ambiguous, and we should not risk surprising English readers by presenting them a false lack of ambiguity. Joy (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW even the Czech Wikipedia has had the ambiguity documented since 2008. --Joy (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't even mention the clickstreams, oops.

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=OKD

In October, 19 identified clickstreams to the software article - without it even being linked in a hatnote. 9 filtered (anonymized) clicks. So the readers are already telling us the same thing through their observable behavior, as small as it is. --Joy (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I disagree with the interpretation, the results are distorted by overall OpenShift page visits. The software has much less visits than the company in last ten years (ten time less in last year, if you want). WikiNav shows that only a small portion of users (8.5 %) who came to the OKD site went then to OpenShift. Adding a disambiguator to the company page will not make it easier or faster for users to find the software, it will only make it slower for them to find the company. Btw cs:OKD is the primary topic on cswiki. FromCzech (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect. We already know from numerous examples that search engines don't drive traffic to our redirects. I've posted numerous examples at WT:D over time. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You need to look at the WikiNav graph of the incoming side, not just the outgoing side. It shows how most of our navigation is governed by the sources - most of the 200-odd viewers there were there because of the search engines and the internal links. This is not a neutral sample of readers, it's a pre-filtered one. Again, apples and oranges.

The company might as well be primary topic at the Czech wiki, and that may be appropriate in context. In English, you have to put forward an actual rationale. --Joy (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's nothing about overall OpenShift page visits that distorts anything, the sheer volume can only illuminate it. I'll repeat once again if you haven't noticed this part: even if a tiny minority of OpenShift readers recognize OKD from that context, they could already be a larger contingent of readers than those who recognize OKD as the previously presumed primary topic.

For example, if only 5% of OpenShift readers associate the term OKD with that topic, based on October numbers that's already ~6,900 * 0.05 = ~345. Since 240 viewers total visited the other article (of which 19 looking for the software for sure, possibly more), that would already be a clear proof of ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are theories, not practice. It could be 5%, it could be 10%, it could be 1%. It is not certain that those 19 people were actually looking for software, the navigation of some of them could have been random. I can say that in the BBC news OKD has appeared twice in the last seven years, but OKD software not once, so 5% of people who follow the BBC have OKD associated with the company, and so on? I only see hard data and it did not convince me of the benefits of the move. FromCzech (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even if it's 1% it would be a confirmation of ambiguity, because 69 is also a number in the same ballpark as 221 or 212, when comparing to the 6,900.

Yes, the readers who appear in outgoing clickstreams as navigating from OKD to the software article were definitely doing that. If you want to dispute that, you need a coherent reason. You can't just assert that the variables given by the clickstreams are "not certain". That's not "seeing hard data", that's literally ignoring the few bits of hard data on outgoing clickstreams that we happen to have. (If it was just random, why weren't these clickstreams towards Main Page, Economy of Kiribati, or some other random topic?)

With regard to BBC stories from December 2018 and July 2020, we can check the graph of views of the OKD article to see if these events causes more reader interest in the company topic. There were indeed spikes of OKD views in July and December 2018, of about ~100%, and a smaller ~50% spike in July 2020. In those months, the ratios of readership between OpenShift and OKD changed from 50 : 1 to 15 : 1, 17 : 1, 30 : 1. This was still a difference of an order of magnitude. The overall readership of the topics just didn't become comparable even in those noteworthy situations.

It should also be said that the OKD company article is an apparent dead end for reader navigation. It's even hard to assume that most of those 220 readers actually read the article when so few links from it were followed (up to 9). This also speaks to a lack of a significant educational value in this article. --Joy (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffrey34555 @Vestrian24Bio hi there. I noticed you guys both relisted this. What would need to happen for you to conclude that we have consensus? Would some parts of the single opposition argument need to be further refuted to make things clearer? --Joy (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Czech Republic, WikiProject Companies, and WikiProject Mining have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 16:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Disambiguation have been notified of this discussion. --Joy (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "OKD" is a three-sentence paragraph at OpenShift; most of the article's pageviews are likely completely unrelated to OKD. The Czech company meets all the notability requirements of a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is like saying Fedora Linux and CentOS are ignorable compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The average OpenShift reader is aware of OKD just like the average RHEL reader is aware of Fedora and CentOS, and doesn't strongly associate the same terms with mining companies, silent films, or charities. Look at the readership ratios of those. If they're anywhere in the same universe as that, it's ample proof of ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fedora Linux and CentOS are well-cited, well-written articles that undeniably meet WP:N.

  OKD (software), as noted above, is a three-sentence paragraph. Please avoid straw man arguments. 162 etc. (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a straw man to judge WP:potential, not just current state. Real-world ambiguity of three-letter acronyms is not judged by which article happened to attract more interest of Wikipedia editors. --Joy (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]