Talk:RouteViews

Requested move 13 July 2023

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. Participants were not convinced that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Route Views → RouteViews – The project name has changed and the title reflects the old project name. I'm asking for assistance as I am paid by the project and I'm not autoconfirmed. This is a contested technical request (permalink).

The RouteViews project has created a lot of confusion over the years by permitting many variations of the name to be used. There are multiple redirects in Wikipedia that reflect this confusion over the project name. I'm attempting to create some clarity by reducing the number of name variations in use. Wikipedia is a common source for citation and an inaccurate name adds to the confusion. While a search for "Route Views" returns more results than "RouteViews", "route-views" returns an order of magnitude more results. It appears that the argument for keeping the name "Route Views" doesn't reflect common usage any more than my request does. I don't understand how internet search results forms the basis of a policy given it doesn't support the current name choice. InternetHex (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment. I am not sure this article meets the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). The title should be based on common use in independent, reliable sources — but is there any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to support the article's information and notability? SilverLocust 💬 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose per the contesting comment by UtherSRG ("This fails WP:COMMONNAME as the current title gets 1.5x results from a simple Google search"). SilverLocust 💬 03:51, 28 July 2023 (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.

Intent to improve this article - Feb 2026

This article is surprisingly sparse for a tool that is cited by over 1,000 academic papers and conference presentations and used quite a bit in analyzing various Internet events. I intend to work on this over the next few weeks to ensure it meets WP:GNG and has more information. - Dyork (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - Expanded the article sufficiently to remove the maintenance tags. - Dyork (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps add some text about other services RouteViews supports such as BMP data through the Kafka stream service or the looking glass and DNS-based query interface? jtk (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jtk: Good suggestion! When I next have some time for this I'll look at that. Thanks! (And if some other editor wants to do so first, that would be great!) - Dyork (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Add RouteViews logo?

It would be great to have the RouteViews logo added. It's been a while since I've uploaded an image ... and so if someone else knows the process better, that would be great. I've found a SVG and a PNG logo for the project at:

• https://assets.routeviews.org/logos/svg/routeviews.svg
• https://assets.routeviews.org/logos/png/transparent-background/routeviews-transparent.png

I'm assuming one of those could work. I think it would be good to upload the logo and then add it to the top of the infobox. - Dyork (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you need permission from the logo owner, or some way to document that the logo itself is open source. If I had that I could upload the logo but without it I would expect it to be removed NetVirt2012 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@NetVirt2012: Thanks for this suggestion back in March. Based on that, I actually reached out to the RouteViews project team and suggested that they ought to have some language somewhere on their site (ex. the About page, or their FAQ) about the license / terms of use for the logo. They thanked me for the suggestion and said they'll add it to their queue. So at some point there may be that clarification on the site than could then be used to add the logo. Thanks! - Dyork (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@NetVirt2012: I noticed that the RouteViews project now has some text at the top of https://www.routeviews.org/routeviews/logos/ stating that permission is given for non-commercial use. In your experience, is that enough to allow the logo to be uploaded? - Dyork (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that should do. I can have a go at uploading it NetVirt2012 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Revisiting the Move Request to "RouteViews"

Close to 3 years after the move request further up the Talk page, I do strongly believe that the article SHOULD be moved to "RouteViews". In expanding the article, I don't think I came across ANY recent mentions that included a space ("Route Views"). I did a quick scan through many of the recent entries in the list of papers on the RouteViews site and I think of the 15-ish papers I looked at, all but 1 used the "RouteViews" name. Some other recent blog posts I've seen have all used "RouteViews".

Given all of this, plus the fact that the project uses "RouteViews" on the project site, I think this is an easy case to move the article.

But a process question to other editors... because there was an earlier contested (and denied) move request, do I need to initiate a new move request? Or can I just exercise WP:BOLD and make the move?

(And yes, I do realize the irony of asking if I can be WP:BOLD flies in the face of the entire point of WP:BOLD🤦‍♂️... but I've actually not been in a situation where there was a previous move request on a article.) - Dyork (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• UPDATE - 29 April 2026: In reading WP:PCM it looks like because there was a previous move request that was denied, I do need to go through the formal move request process, rather than just being bold. In looking at previous opposition, it seems to be in two areas:

• Failure of WP:GNG - I hope that with the substantial improvements I've made to this article, this is no longer an issue. In my opinion, this does now meet WP:GNG.
• Failure of WP:COMMONNAME - It is still true that Google search results provide many more for "Route Views" than "RouteViews", however when I review the search results that I get for "Route Views", many of them in fact point to pages where the text is actually "RouteViews". 🤷‍♂️ And I get other results that do not relate to the actual tool. [Insert rant here about my intense frustration with the continued enshittification of Google search results!] As I noted in the text to which I am replying, when updating this article almost all of the sources I used and papers I examined now use "RouteViews", and so that definitely seems to be the common name used now.

I think, though, that I still need to go through the move request process because of the prior instance.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance from UtherSRG, SilverLocust, EggRoll97, or any other editor who reviewed this in the past. Thank you! - Dyork (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I was uninvolved in the move discussion, and I generally speaking have no opinion on your proposed move. From a procedural standpoint, you should proceed with a new RM, since the move would obviously be controversial. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Okay, I'll do that. In the 22+ years I've been editing here, I've never actually requested a move... but per WP:RSPM it looks like all I do is add the relevant template here on this Talk page. I'll do that in the next day or so. Thank you! - Dyork (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 1 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: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Route Views → RouteViews – During a recent (Feb 2026) substantial update of this article to ensure it met WP:GNG, all the recent references I could find use the name without a space, i.e. "RouteViews". This is also the name of the project on its own site. Further, when I reviewed 25 of the most recent of the 1,094 academic papers referencing the project], 20 used the name without a space, 2 used the name with a space, 1 used both, and 2 were paywalled and I was unable to access them. Three years ago the requested move failed on WP:GNG and WP:COMMONNAME. I would hope WP:GNG is now satisfied by recent updates, and I would suggest that in recent years the common name has shifted to no longer include the space. Making this change will further help with that consolidation of naming given the prominence of Wikipedia. Thank you for the consideration! - Dyork (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I support this. Move the name to the one with no space and add a redirect for the deprecated name (with the space). Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:38, 3 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.