Content deleted Content added
→RfC on redirect vs other options: sorry about all the typos -- I need to clean or replace this keyboard |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 90:
::::::I also support a redirect. I'm not sure how to do this procedurally. I looked at the old discussion and I was not so convinced that it excluded the redirect. But it's clearly contentious to some extent. An AfD doesn't seem quite right because no one actually wants to delete the page. Maybe an RfC? {{u|St.nerol}} would you like to set that up? I don't want to fiddle with all the templates at this exact moment, though I think there are fewer of them than for an AfD. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
== RfC on redirect,
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748383270}}
Should the page [[cumulative density function]] be:
* Option '''A''': a redirect to [[cumulative distribution function]]
Line 101:
===Survey===
* Option '''A'''. This is clearly the intended meaning in scholarly uses of the term. Some argue that this is an error, on the basis that a CDF is not a density function. It is true that a CDF is not a density function, but English is not so tidy that a cumulative density function needs to be a density function. This is a well-attested usage and I am uncomfortable calling it an error in WikiVoice, though I would not intentionally use it myself. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 21:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
* Option '''A'''. Although this can be argued to be a mistaken term, I think it is far more likely that the intended meaning is cumulative distribution function, and far less likely that it is probability density function, so [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] and [[WP:2DABS]] apply. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Could you explain the significance of WP:2DABS here? —[[User:St.nerol|St.Nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/St.nerol|contribs]]) 22:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*::If there are only two topics to disambiguate and one of them is primary, we should not have a disambiguation page (so we should not do option B); instead, we should have a redirect to the primary topic and a hatnote on that article pointing to the other one. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thanks! For further clarification, would the hatnote be permanently visible at the top of [[cumulative distribution function]]? If so, given that most readers would not arrive there from this page, how could such a note be phrased? —[[User:St.nerol|St.Nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/St.nerol|contribs]]) 22:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
*::::If there were one, then yes it would be; this is fairly standard. Search for uses of {{tl|redirect}} to see examples. I personally would somewhat prefer that we not have such a hatnote (see my response to Elemimele) but in any case I think that's a little outside the scope of this RFC, which is about what to do with ''this'' page. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
*Option '''A'''. It's a fairly innocuous back-formation from CDF by analogy with PDF. We should give the reader what they are looking for and not a lecture on proper terminology. —[[User:St.nerol|St.Nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/St.nerol|contribs]]) 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*Option '''A'''. (invited here by the RfC bot) Being cumulative, it isn't a PDF, so we don't need to clarify that.---'''[[User:Avatar317|<span style="background:#8A2BE2; color:white; padding:2px;">Avatar317</span>]][[User talk:Avatar317|<sup><span style="background:#7B68EE; color:white; padding:2px;">(talk)</span></sup>]]''' 23:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*{{sbb}} Option '''A''' and hatnote to option B per David's comments above. [[User:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#663399; text-shadow:3px 3px 5px #dda0dd">SmittenGalaxy</span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold">|</span> [[User_talk:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000080">talk!</span>]] 07:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
* '''Hatnote''' at Cumulative distribution function pointing to probability density function, and option '''A'''. The current (helpful!) disambig doesn't lecture the reader; the only complaint that can be levelled against it is that it falls foul of [[WP:2DABS]], and the 2DABS argument is that if there are only two targets, they ''should'' be dealt with by hat-notes instead, so merely redirecting without a hat-note is a very poor choice. Most readers may be looking for CDF, but we shouldn't make personal assumptions or ignore the minority who were aiming for PDF. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 12:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Such a hatnote wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I really don't see the need for it. I doubt this is a common error. It's just not particularly plausible that someone would type "cumulative" when thinking of the PDF. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 20:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Is there any evidence that "cumulative density function" has ever meant anything else than "cumulative distribution function", anywhere? —[[User:St.nerol|St.Nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/St.nerol|contribs]]) 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
* Option '''A''': Someone looking for a "cumulative density function" is clearly looking for something cumulative, or they wouldn't have included an extra word to express that. No hatnote seems necessary to me; it seems like just a misnomer but not really unclear. (It also doesn't seem common, so not worth the clutter.) — [[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
* David Eppstein wrote: "If there are only two topics to disambiguate and one of them is primary" etc. I don't think that rule was intended for cases where the title of the article is a complete misnomer and oxymoron, like "cumulative density function." [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 05:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' it is not clear to me that it is a complete misnomer and oxymoron. I agree that it's a poorer choice of terminology than "cumulative distribution function", but as I said above, I do not agree with calling it an error in Wikivoice, unless reliable secondary sources specifically making that exact claim can be found. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 05:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion===
* '''Procedural comment'''. I believe I have notified everyone who participated in either the discussion above or the AfD, but if I missed anyone, please let me know. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 21:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
*:Thank you @[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] for the notification. I have not followed the discussion, and two years have passed since the AfD. If the consensus here renders that moot, feel free to take whatever action consensus determines now. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Since a couple of editors talk about adding a hatnote at [[cumulative distribution function]], I'll make a note at that talk page. —[[User:St.nerol|St.Nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/St.nerol|contribs]]) 16:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||