Many animals have "Java" in their names, for example: Java sparrow, Javan rhino, Javan tiger, etc.. Should we make a section about these animals? Bennylin (talk
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
Latest comment: 2 months ago33 comments15 people in discussion
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak support. I agree that there's no primary topic. Java (programming language) has slightly more page views (long term) and incoming links than the island. The language has been around for 30 years, so passes the 10 year test for avoiding recentism. Editors often link to Java when they intend an IT meaning so, if experienced editors don't think the island is a PT, maybe readers don't either. Weak support only, because little has changed since a similar RM in 2021 found no consensus, or indeed since RMs in 2018 and in 2014 opposed the move. Certes (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. I agree there is no primary topic here. Wikinav shows that roughly a third of people arriving at Java want either the programming language or another topic on the disambiguation page, about equal to the number of people who go on to visit Jakarta. Of people viewing the Java (programming language) article, more people navigate from Java than from any other internal link, including Javascript. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The clickstream data is troubling, but then so is the proposer. I guess the problem is that this is a foreign toponym, while the computing topic is native to the English-speaking world and is a concept more general than a single company, and so the island sits in the somewhat uneasy position of not being as strong a case as apple, and the issue keeps coming up. --Joy (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If one topic is primary by one measure and a different is primary by a different measure then surely there is, by definition, no primary topic? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not rank the criteria, It's also worth reading what the longterm significance criterion actually says: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I'm not sure that was can say that one of the world's most popular programming languages that has been around for 30 years has substantially less enduring notability or educational value than the island. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. The guideline is clear that that situation does not create a situation of no primary topic: In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic.Srnec (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It would probably help if we could quantify this better, so we're not stuck on interpreting this as if it was just a matter of language.
For example, see if Books Ngrams help indicate what may be the volume of sources writing about the topics, and if there's perhaps any trends that indicate it's more ambiguous than the navigation currently presumes. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The island is primary by longterm significance, even if not by pageviews. This is the more relevant criterion since interest in the island is less specialist. Srnec (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is the PRIMARYTOPIC guideline that says in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. Clearly it considers that the criteria may not be of equal relevance in all cases. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: To quote from @Merbabu in the previous discussion: "To those proposing the island is not the primary topic, if hypothetically, the programming language was not called "Java", but "California", what would you suggest is the primary topic? The US State or the computer language? Noting that if it was a country, Java island would be the 8th largest in the world by population (larger than Russia, Mexico, Japan, Germany). It is also the central powerhouse of Indonesia, the fourth largest country in the world. California by comparison would be the 38th largest country." Ladtrack (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The language isn't called California though so that's completely irrelevant. It is also irrelevant what the subjects are - they could be a continent and a prehistoric mustelid or a semiconductor and a German primary school. What matters is whether, objectively, there is a primary topic based on all the data we have available to us (page views, clickstreams, search results, etc) and every single one of them shows that there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Of course it matters what the subjects are. The long-term significance criterion directly relates to the long-term significance of the subject, which is obviously related to what the subjects are. You may not give it much weight but it says right on the guideline to consider that. We have, on occasion, decided to override the presumed usage-based primary topic in favor of one with immensely greater long-term significance, like avatar vs Avatar or nirvana vs Nirvana.
The relevance of the California example is that unlike with that example, this perennial proposal involves systemic bias. Namely, that the programming language is primarily of interest to English-speaking Western people with internet access (or, in other words, exactly English Wikipedia's primary reader and editor base), whereas the island is of interest to a much greater number of primarily non-English speaking Indonesians, many of whom do not have internet access. These people are not represented nearly as well on English Wikipedia, but that does not make them less important. Ladtrack (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We should do what best helps our readers. Non-English speakers with no internet are important people, but whatever we decide here won't help them much. Certes (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Non-English speakers" is a very good point - we are only interested in what is the primary topic for people looking for information on the English Wikipedia. I would guess that among Indonesian speakers the island is by far and away the primary topic (assuming both topics are called "Java" in that language), but if Indonesian speakers preferences were relevant to article titling on the English Wikipedia jam would be an article about periods of 60 minutes. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We consider the long-term significance of the two (or more) ambiguous topics being considered, regardless of what those topics are, we look to see if the specific continent (island, semiconductor) has more or less long-term significance than a specific prehistoric mustelid (programming language, primary school), we do not look to see whether continents (etc) in general have more or less long term significance than prehistoric mustelids (etc) in general.
California is irrelevant because neither of the topics here are called "California". It would be systematic bias to assume that our subjective feelings about what should be primary (or that our feelings are inherently biased and so reverse them) matter more than the objective data. We should take readers to the topic they are actually looking for, regardless of why they are looking for it, rather than what we think they should be looking at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and this specific island is more important than this specific programming language. This specific island is more important than all programming languages, including this one. This specific island is at least as important as the concept of computer programming in general, if not more. Ladtrack (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's not what any of the objective data we have says. What makes your unreferenced opinion more correct than my opinion (backed by objective data) that there is no primary topic? Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nothing, especially. You are more than welcome to give your opinion (as you have, above) and I am equally welcome to give my opinion, which I have here. As I'm sure you're aware, references are for article space, and this is not article space. In my opinion (which is no more or less valid than yours, if I can make that crystal-clear), the island has immense long term significance, a factor which I have personally weighed very highly, resulting in my conclusion that this should be the primary topic. After all, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. There is no clear primary topic by usage, but since, in my view, Java has substantially greater long-term signficance, it should be primary. Ladtrack (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this appeal to no references, just opinions needed - is great, because the WP:DPT guideline has long referred to English sources, and WP:CONS policy requires reasons based in something more tangible.
Obviously, this cuts both ways - we could also just find that there's so many references to the island in English-language sources. --Joy (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
...Where did the "prior move discussion" box go?
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No wonder the previous move reappears old arguments eg. pageviews; I'm pretty sure this leaf had a "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." box, just as in Talk:Java proper. Where did it disappear to? I would readd it myself if I know how the flow works. Terrabalt (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.