Talk:Nios

Untitled

See Also

I propose a change to this article's See Also section. Please see Talk:Nios See Also List for details.

KerryVeenstra 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reason for redirect

I've noticed for over a year that people refer to the current National Institute of Open Schooling using the name of its predecessor, Nios II. It is very rare that someone wants to know about the original Nios II. So I've structured the National Institute of Open Schooling redirect page and disambiguation page after the Johann Sebastian Bach article, which has the same issue: people who search for Bach most likely are interested in the composer, just as people who search for Nios most likely are interested in the National Institute of Open Schooling. The less common meanings of Bach and Nios are listed on their respective disambiguation pages.

I thought long before creating a page with the name "Nios (disambiguation)", since it is not a standardized name (see 3.3 Page Naming Conventions in Wikipedia:Disambiguation) . However, conforming to the standard in this case doesn't help the Wikipedia users, and so I deviate from this convention boldly!

KerryVeenstra 08:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

-->since this disambiguation page have only two article there fore its better to remove the disambiguation And secondly Nios II doesn't belong to this disa page so its better to remover or deleter this disambiguation page--Sita manu (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should have links to 3 articles in English and several more in other languages. You deleted the link to one of the other English articles without providing any reason (it isn't the one you mention here, and even for that one you didn't give a reason). I think if someone actually was looking for Nios II that it would be quite reasonable for them to just look under Nios. Ditto for the embedded processor; if I remember that Altera made something called Nios but not exactly what kind of part it was, I won't know to type "embedded processor" in my search. Why do you think this page should be deleted? Is it because you want to have this redirect to National Institute of Open Schooling? I don't think that is more important than the processor; in Google the processor is about half the results on the first page, but the Indian education board is only one of the top ten. If anything, the processor is the more relevant search result. And look at the stats for those pages. Nios II had almost twice as many views as the National Institute of Open Schooling last month: 2160 vs 1100. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What you mentioned I completely agree with you, Nios II is far more important than National Institute of Open Schooling. But what i found is that when i search Google as nios the Nios II article comes on top ten not the education board but when i search on yahoo both the articles are coming on the top ten. So i think you should delete this discontinuation page so that both the article come on the top ten page what will help if anyone want to view Nios II he/she can easily view but in India if someone want view the education article he can easily view its the user choice again i must say Nios II is far more important than that. Since CBSE or IGCSE or CISCE article are all education related therefore i want that NIOS article should also come on the top ten websites. Thank You--Sita manu (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If we were going to delete this disambiguation page, then it would make the most sense to redirect Nios to Nios II as it's the most important and most common. Is that the outcome you're looking for? That would have the effect of making it harder for people searching for Nios on Wikipedia to find the education board. You shouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to affect search engine results though, which is what it sounds like is your goal. Please review the guidelines for disambiguation pages and see if you can come up with a reason within the guidelines for deleting this page. Right now your rationale doesn't make a lot of sense. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly what i want, i want that the Nios disam should be deleted and it must be redirect to the education board article rather than Nios II. Simply because the Nios II article is coming on the top ten google or any other search engine its unfortunate that the education board article is not coming on top ten search results. Therefore please delete and then redirect the Nios (disa) to the education board article. Since in India it one of the most important article therefore it should come on the top ten not on the second page. Thank You--Sita manu (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that what you're asking can't be done according to the disambiguation policy. Here are the two choices: A) Leave the disambiguation page as it is B) We delete the content of this page and redirect it to Nios II as the primary topic. Nios II is more common, so it would clearly be the primary topic. Your suggestion isn't an option; it violates the policy and makes it harder for the majority of users who aren't looking for the National Institute of Open Schooling. Once again, you're not talking about policy; you're just talking about how you want articles important to you to get good search results. That isn't an acceptable reason for changing a redirect and confusing people who want to find Nios II. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK you tell how the education board article can come on the top ten Google search results. I don't understand the Nios II article does come on the top ten search results so why your so bothered about that look i have to make this redirect to the education board article sorry I have no other choice i don't care whether Nios II is far more important than the education article or not. This is my last suggestion now either you delete the Nios (disa) and redirect to the education board article or i will do it. Thank You--Sita manu (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the search engine results as a way of showing which topic is more important, which is the correct way to determine where the redirect should go. These are called "disambiguation" pages because they take something that is ambiguous (more than one possible meaning) and make it clearer. The two ways to be clearer are to give a list like it does now or to go to the most important/common topic. If you do the change you say you will, it will be disruptive and you'll be back to WP:ANI for blocks on both your accounts. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing the promotional redirect as IP addresses rather than doing it while signed in doesn't actually make it less disruptive, nor is anyone fooled into thinking it isn't you. This is very clearly a redirect away from the primary topic for the sole purpose of affecting search engine results; that's exactly what a promotional redirect is. You can say "I have no other choice" as much as you want, but you do have a choice: you can choose to follow the same rules as everyone else. You choose to continue to behave as if you are above all Wikipedia rules, just as you have pretended that copyright laws in the US & India don't apply to you in the past. What do you expect to gain by playing this game? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)