Talk:Open-source software/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Open-source software. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Requested move 13 October 2022
- 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. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Open-source software → Open source software – "open source software" is the more common spelling in the English language. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open-source+software%2Copen+source+software&year_start=1970&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOPEN%20SOURCE%20SOFTWARE%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3 Llightex (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's also used most commonly by the actual OSS community. https://github.com/open-source, https://opensource.guide/, https://opensource.org/
- Oppose: The numbers are always going to be skewed towards "open source" because of lazy writers: Hitting the space bar is more convenient than reaching for the hyphen. I prefer "open-source" because in larger expressions like "free and open-source software" it makes clear that the two words "open" and "source" belong together and form a single adjective. Microsoft's style guide and Compute Hope's advice happen to align perfectly with my view. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Several other articles would also have to be moved to maintain consistency, some of which can be found at this 12-year-old discussion. I found some more: Open-source hardware, Open-source bounty, Open-source license, Open-source governance, Open-source ventilator, List of open-source health software, and Open-source Unicode typefaces. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dexxor, @Extraordinary Writ: I don't think it's because of "lazy writers", but rather a genuine difference in practice in spelling it with a hyphen versus not. For example, Google's style guide advocates not using hyphens (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/comms/style-guide); Apache doesn't use hyphens (https://www.apache.org/); OpenSSF doesn't use a hyphen (https://openssf.org/); neither has OSI even as far back 2002 (https://web.archive.org/web/20021004120021/http://www.opensource.org/index.php); and neither has Congress done so (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4913/text).
- When choosing which practice to use (hyphen or not?) I believe the more common term should be used. The same test should be applied to the examples you cite for consistency ("open-source hardware", "open-source bounty", etc.). Some of them ("open-source hardware" for example) may need to be moved, but others will likely stay the same. Simply put, by picking the most common usage, you can stick with both articles named, for example, "open source software" and "open-source ventilator". Llightex (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- For your point about "free and open-source software"; we may prefer a particular spelling to avoid ambiguity (just like some prefer to use the Oxford comma), but I don't think that's relevant if we have an overriding common usage. In this case, if you look at the n-grams, "free and open source software" is used far more -- "free and open-source software" does not even make the n-gram lists because it's so infrequently used. The GNU.org open source philosophy essays (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html) also use the unhyphenated term. Llightex (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's also used most commonly by the actual OSS community. https://github.com/open-source, https://opensource.guide/, https://opensource.org/
- Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. Based on our general article title formatting policies and basic English grammar rules, compound adjectives like this are generally hyphenated. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Wikipedia has no firm rules, when WP:COMMONNAME would conflict with formatting policies, it makes sense to me to give the common name policy precedence. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME has nothing to do with typographic style questions. COMMONNAME is what tells us whether to use David Johansen or Buster Poindexter. Whether to hyphenate is controlled by MOS:HYPHEN. We already know that "open[-]source software" (styled either way) is the common name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The MOS applies to article titles, and MOS:HYPHEN makes clear that compound modifiers such as this one generally need a hyphen. Personally I'm skeptical of the notion that COMMONNAME should take precedence on style issues (see here for some differing perspectives on that question), but even accepting that it should, the purpose of COMMONNAME is to produce titles that meet the criteria, and in this case the hyphenated version is a bit more recognizable and much more consistent (see Dexxor's comments above) with only a slight loss (at worst) in the naturalness department. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. It's like when we decide whether to use a hyphen or a dash in a title. Or like how we don't generally capitalize short prepositions in titles even if a majority of sources do because of our general article title formatting rules, we also generally hyphenate compound adjectives in titles such as this regardless of what a majority of sources do. This is a formatting/English grammar issue, not a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. There is nothing magically special about this case, and WP doesn't care whether other publishers under their own style guides know how to hyphenate properly or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a misery though. My understanding of the hyphen rules is: "open-source software" is software with the attribute of being open-source. "Open source software" would be something different, software about the phenomenon dubbed "open source". This distinction becomes more apparent when you turn to other uses, e.g. "open-source strategies" vs "open source strategies". The first are strategies that are available as open source, the second are strategies about open source, the phenomenon. Open-source tooling is tools that are open source, open source tooling are tools for open source (like GitHub, which is not provided as open-source software). Dirk Riehle (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2022 (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.
