Talk:Java (disambiguation)

Should animals get included in the disambig page?

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) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Are these animals referred to simply as "Java"? If not, then we normally exclude partial title matches. Certes (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2026

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. General consensus is that the island is the primary topic by long-term significance. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 21:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Java (disambiguation) → Java – There is no primary topic for this. Both the programming language and Island are about as notable. Pdgska (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 18:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose because the island is the primary topic by long-term significance. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus at multiple previous discussions, most recently in 2022. 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support and move the island to Java (island). No clear primary topic, the island has 40,459 views but the programming language has 40,013[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment: The proposer of this move has been blocked as a sock of Timelash. Certes (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 00:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per Joe vom Titan and 162 etc. The world's most populous island at 156,927,804 (List of islands by population) is indeed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The island is primary by longterm significance, even if not by pageviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  What a bizarrely inaccurate thing for it to say, especially as Apple is clearly the primary topic by all measures. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Apple Inc. has more pageviews. So how is it inaccurate? Srnec (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• Support per nom, there's no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

  Neither criterion is more relevant than the other. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  That's true but irrelevant. In this case both criteria are relevant but neither is more relevant than the other. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose. The island is the clear primary topic by long-term significance amongst anyone except computer nerds. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2026 (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.

...Where did the "prior move discussion" box go?

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)