Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2015.

Hindaun city medi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Bearcat wrote about the user Tulshi Pandey (t c)'s edits on Diff of Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, and I invited the user to comment, but to no avail. Judging from the the history it looks like TP moved the already existing redirect Hindaun city medi to Hindon City-Rural and then moved Hindon City-Rural to Hindaun City-Rural. Judging from Google searches both Hindaun City-Rural ("Hindaun City-Rural"), Hindon City-Rural ("Hindon City-Rural"), and Hindaun city medi ("Hindaun city medi") are implausible. -- Sam Sing! 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a bit of background, the larger context is that the user has been hijacking various articles about small towns in India — mostly places in Rajasthan which happen to be near Hindaun, but also occasionally places nowhere near Hindaun which merely happen to have the same name as other places closer to Hindaun — to assert that they're neighbourhoods in Hindaun. ("Hindaun city medi", frex, is actually a reference to the nearby, but separate, town of Medi, India.) The changes are not supported by any reliable sourcing to demonstrate that their existing status has been altered at all — the phrase "Hindaun City Rural" gets no Google hits apart from a couple of Wikipedia pages linked by virtue of this redirect and this discussion — and his edits have invariably resulted in the pages in question landing on the uncategorized articles list because categories like "Villages in Hindaun" are nonexistent redlinks. As noted by the nominator, I asked WikiProject India to review the matter to determine whether there was any genuinely encyclopedic basis for these changes, but have yet to see a response — but the edits have been unconditionally disruptive in character regardless of their worth or lack thereof. And even if there is a valid basis for the changes, they would need to be made comprehensively and properly rather than in the way this user has been going about it. I'm fully in favour of deleting all three redirects unless somebody can properly demonstrate that there's a valid basis for them. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User also just hijacked Hindon City-Rural and arbitrarily renamed it to Hindaun Subdristict as a new attempt to recreate the same badly sourced article. Even correctly spelled as "subdistrict", a Google search on this term brings up only Wikipedia hits, strongly suggesting that the concept is a figment of the user's own imagination. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sharon Flanagan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this redirect refers to a subject by the name of "Stephanie Galligan", as mentioned in the target article. However, "Stephanie Galligan" is not linked, and "Stephanie Galligan" or this nominated redirect do not refer to the subject of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sum[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Sum (disambiguation) over the redirect. There's some good-faith disagreement over what, if anything, is the primary topic for this term, so disambiguation is the logical way to go. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget The longstanding target (for 9 years) of the redirect has been summation. Earlier this month, it was repointed to the disambiguation page. I believe this should be restored to point to summation (where "sum" is explained in the first 3/4 of the introduction) or alternately to addition. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Addition. 65.94 was quite right in saying that all, but I think addition is a better target. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that I just lost a bit of blood not unfortunately delivered to the blood donor service but my stupidity of cutting some glass and getting it a bit wrong. I think I am ok now but excuse me for being a bit high, My comment as it stands is what I think but I am still a bit airy, so I wouldn't trust me. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article summation currently has a longish hatnote already, and already another disambiguation page summary (disambiguation) to worry about. One could argue that this link is not very necessary, and we could replace it with a link to sum (disambiguation) instead. But I think this should be accounted for in the discussion here. I'm rather inclined to say that this redirect should remain at the disambiguation page, at least until a fuller discussion of what actually needs to be disambiguated in the hatnote has taken place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The longish hatnote was a result of there inexplicably being no link to Summation (disambiguation). I've fixed that, and made some improvements to that dab. But now the hatnote raises another issue, which I will add below. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See Talk:Summation § "Sum" for further background and analysis. The argument that "sum" is explained in the first 3/4 of the introduction is one that supports summation as being a WP:content fork of addition, or that Summation should be moved to Sum, if it's the WP:primary topic for that title, as "sum" is the more WP:common name, or that the lead section of summation needs to be rewritten to put more emphasis on the fact that, under WP:summary style it is an article about a specific aspect of addition, namely the use of the use of the sigma notation or capital-sigma notation, or summation notation Σ (rather than a series of + signs) to show a sequence of numbers to be added. At the moment I'm leaning towards endorsing the move of Sum (disambiguation) to Sum as, between Summation and Addition, there does not seem to be a clear primary topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was surprised to just notice that Summation (disambiguation) was not even included in the hatnote. Note how that refers to Summation as simply "a mathematical notation". Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirection to Sum (disambiguation), or Move Sum (disambiguation) to Sum. To repeat what I said on Talk:Summation, a summation usually means a sum of many things, perhaps an infinite number of terms. The way this all started was that I was trying to remember a term ("direct sum"), so I typed "sum". Instead of this going to the disambiguation page where I could look to see whether I could find what I was looking for, it went to Summation, and then I had to click on the link to "Sum (disambiguation)" in the note about Sum redirecting to Summation. So I decided to change Sum to redirect to the disambiguation directly. I think that makes more sense. As I have noted in my edit comments, I don't think the fact that Sum has redirected to Summation for years is a good argument. I do not agree that the Summation article's introduction talks mostly about sums in general. It immediately starts talking about partial sums, running totals, series, and sums of several numbers. Nothing about direct sums (what I was interested in) or simple addition of two numbers. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Summation (restore prior to earlier retargeting) as primary topic. The hatnote there is quite long and perhaps it can be cleaned up. I disagree that summation is the same as addition - addition is a mathematical operation while summation is the aggregate of all values of a given function for an identified range of values; summation involves addition but can also involve any mathematical function. Or perhaps more simply: addition is taking two values and putting them together to get a new value, summation is doing addition repeatedly, perhaps infinitely many times, perhaps a negative number of times if you get into complex math. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) disclaimer: not a mathematician[reply]
    • Is (2 + 2 + 2 = 6) an example of addition, summation, or both? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments – It's interesting to compare the equivalent term for subtraction, difference, with sum. Note that the primary topic for Difference (mathematics) is simply "the result of arithmetic subtraction, and not Difference (set theory). Why do we seem to have no problems performing "a series of subtractions" with multiple minus signs, rather than using some sort of Δ notation for the task? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment – Wiktionary gives an interesting example: see wikt:∑. So is this example:
    a "summation" because it uses the "summation notation", or is is simply "addition" because it's just adding two numbers? Wiktionary suggests a definition: Summation (∑) is Sum (addition) over a set of like terms. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Addition. One should not have a page titled "SOMETHING (disambiguation)" unless the page titled "SOMETHING" is about the principal referent of the word. If entering the word "sum" in the search box is to take the user to a disambiguation page, then the disambiguation page should be titled "Sum". (But I think redirecting to addition is the better solution in this case.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Addition per the above. Summation is merely one kind of addition; it is not ambiguous to it, but a subtopic of it (even if other mathematical shortcuts are used to reach the result). bd2412 T 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Move Sum (disambiguation) to Sum since I am split between this term primarily referring to Summation or Addition, and I cannot see the term "sum" suddenly appearing less ambiguous to me in that regard. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_26&oldid=1138580151"