Jump to content

Talk:Ginsberg's theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 01:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Ginsberg's theoremGinsberg's Theorem

It was originally coined as a proper name[1]. In google books almost all sources capitalize it [2] [3], which means that they treat it as a proper noun. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, do you have any actual policy-based or guideline-based reason? (Myself, I am arguing WP:LOWERCASE, which says to capitalize proper names, and this is clearly a proper name). Also, I changed the link to google books because I had forgotten to close a quote, you ca3DDiscovery, innovation,*ll books use capitalization. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – if the usage was consistently upper case, I'd consider it, but it's not. The guideline on what's a proper noun doesn't have any good criterion for concluding that this is one; other theorems are not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikiquotes

[edit]

I have added the quotation to Wikiquotes, wikiquote:Allen_Ginsberg. There really seems to be nothing to be said more than the ""theorem"" itself. I'm planning on redirecting this article there. Nothing else here seems worth saving. Any objections? Dingo1729 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object. Most people said to keep the article[4], not eliminate it by a delete or a redirect. Its fine the way it is. Dream Focus 02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading, most people said to keep it but merge it or turn it into a redirect and I didn't see anyone objecting to Dingo's proposed action in that discussion. If you disagree, please provide a summary of the positions of those participating. (I'm not taking a position on Dingo's bold move yet.) Jojalozzo 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four of us said keep before his final comment which he said to redirect it, and no one posted after him. Lack of a response doesn't mean people agree with you, they just see no reason to repeat what they already said before. One delete other than the nominator, and one merge, with four saying keep, and he then saying keep but redirect. It closed as no consensus. Dream Focus 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's pretty much what I see except Grappler concludes with "delete" at the end of his post, making it three deletes and four keeps, plus a merge and Dingo's redirect, total nine participants. Jojalozzo 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to use this redirect is there a way to get it to act like a proper redirect and transparently go to the wikiquoite page instead of hanging up on the redirect page? Jojalozzo 02:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ability to make a redirect which goes immediately to another wiki (a hard redirect in wiki-speak) has been disabled and we can only use one which displays the redirect page first (a soft redirect). Dingo1729 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone see anything other than a quotation here? I don't see any analysis or commentary in the references. Just a quotation. I don't really see how anything much more can be said about it. That's why I put the suggestion here and then waited for a few days before actually making the redirect. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, as already explained in the AFD. I don't see as how it needs anything else. Its fine the way it is. Dream Focus 06:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The AfD was closed as no consensus, meaning that other attempts to attain consensus regarding this article are not barred. The other participants in the AfD neither objected nor supported redirection to Wikiquote. Therefore, I am inviting them to comment here and starting an RfC to solicit uninvolved editors' opinions. Goodvac (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?

[edit]

Potential ChatGPT writing?

[edit]

I noticed there was a recent, relatively large change made all at once a few weeks ago that seems to have a lot of the writing traits of ChatGPT or some other LLM. Specifically, the writing is very formulaic and template-like, and the article is broken up into a list with paragraphs for each entry, the format which ChatGPT almost always answers in. I'm going to revert this edit since it doesn't add anything of note to the article and lacks any sourcing as well. Chemistmenace (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]