Are the two English meanings really distinct? From what I've been given to understand, both are from lynx, the computing sense being from an analogy between the Gopher-browsing program and the gopher-eating animal. Perhaps one is from the Latin and one from the English -- but then, how could that be proven? -- Visviva 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
These are proper names whose inclusion is restricted under both specific entities and WT:BRAND. Note that open-source advocates, software developers, and web designers may have an “economic interest in the product.” —MichaelZ. 2010-03-18 17:42 z
Are you sure you want to RFV these and not RFD them? I could easily find citations attesting the existence of e.g. XP, Chrome and Acrobat, even though they are not the full names of the products in question. Ah, but probably not in a good attributive way. Equinox◑ 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Would going straight to RFD be kosher? Suits me, although a couple of these may turn out to be attestable. Yup, citing them per Specific and/or Brand guidelines may be a bit of work. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-19 23:25 z
A small aside on Linux: whereas most of your terms are proprietary things, this one is a free (open, shareable) operating system that anyone can take and modify, so you can definitely talk about Linuxes (different varieties). Collins even has linux and linuxes as (I think) lower-cased terms playable in Scrabble, along with emacs (text editor released under a similar "free" licence) and its silly plural emacsen. IMO, this makes it pretty generic and worth an entry, as opposed to (say) Windows which is one specific branded product. Equinox◑ 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking Linux may be citable generically, as in “a Linux netbook” or something. But open-source brand names might be even harder to cite per WT:BRAND than others. There are potentially many more “parties with economic interest in the product,” such as distributors, consultants, etc. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-22 00:03 z
But of course, Windows also has distributors, consultants, and so on. —RuakhTALK 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Right ye are! I thought it was cited. Now it can be. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-25 19:32 z
They are words used in English, and including them is useful (e.g. how do you pronounce Mozilla in English? I have no idea...) The first sentence of CFI makes them includable. Lmaltier 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I second that, plus many of these technologies may have a translation into other languages with pronunciation, gender and other useful information. If we restrict the entries to have a dry definition - what it is, then we can restrict "economic interest in the product." Look at BMW as an example. If the entry stays as it is, is there any problem? Users will want to know words from the linguistic point of view and search for translations, if they are relevant. The translations may be only colloquial (in Japan Windows is still "Windows") but they do exist, e.g. ウィンドウズ. --Anatoli 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
BMW is expanded as an initialism, and not a defined as a brand name. I dunno if our CFI allow it or not.
But these are all names, and probably not English words according to the terms of our CFI. (Wikipedia may have information about their names.) If you think some of these may be English words, here's your opportunity to cite them. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-25 19:32 z
Arabs transliterate software names more often than others. A dictionary can tell users that it is أكروبات, it is masculine and can be pronounced "'akrubaat" (one standard variant). A person not familiar with the language won't know this, even if they have the link to the Wikipedia page. It's אקרובט in Hebrew, etc. --Anatoli 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of CFI does not explain exactly what a word is; the rest of CFI does that. Per CFI, Mozilla is not a word if it's only ever used by people with economic interest in it. --Yair rand 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an economic interest in Mozilla (or any of the others) but use the term frequently.--Dmol 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As do many others, which is why most of these terms are probably citable. --Yair rand 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to start making these comments below in the appropriate section. As this part grows it will be impossible to follow a discussion on a particular RFV.--Dmol 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)