Content deleted Content added
→Survey: option A but conditional on hatnote |
|||
Line 109:
*{{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)
===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)
| |||