Talk:Open source (disambiguation)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I don't know why, but I looked at the Talk:Open-source (with a dash) page and found only .  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Albums? 

message: 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  moved page Open source to Open-source model over redirect 
* 16:21, 3 November 2016  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  2016 moves