User talk:Scyrme/Archive Q3 2022

"Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Narundi/Narunte/Narute
Why do you insist on continuing an error that was based on Hinz's conjectural, and incorrect, reading of the LE inscription? The identification of the goddess statue as Narundi is wrong because the inscription on the statue itself explicitly identifies her as Peltikalim, an Elamite form of Akkadian Belat-ekallim, "Lady of the Palace" a well-known byname of Innana/Ishtar, see Desset et al. (forthcoming). The complete re-edition of the Linear Elamite text in Desset et al. (forthcoming) will conclusively demonstrate the identification as Peltikalim. Please refrain from attempting to sustain an incorrect identification that unfortunately has been repeated in the secondary literature for many years. Thank you. Awanir (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You provided absolutely no reason to believe you were correct in making the addition. You didn't explain any of this in your edit summary, and neither myself nor the other editor (Ploversegg) who undid your addition had any way to verify that what you added was correct. I tried asking you for a reference regarding this on the talk page (here), and the same request was made repeatedly in the edit summaries of the undoing edits; I only reverted after you were unresponsive on the talk page despite having edited the article after I had made the request on the talk page. If someone undoes an edit you've made you should discuss the change on the article's talk page instead of fighting an edit war. I would've happily restored your addition myself had you just explained. – Scyrme (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You should continue this at the article's talk page, rather than replying here. Other editors interested in the article may want to discuss this and other issues with you, but won't necessary check my user talk page. – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your valuable advice. I am sorry but my intention was not to initiate an "edit war" at all. I just wanted to correct an error that has been perpetuated, particularly in secondary literature, over many years based on Hinz's well-intentioned but mostly incorrect reading of the Linear Elamite inscription on the goddess statue. Hinz's was indeed a valiant effort but the small corpus of the Linear Elamite inscriptions at the time was an insurmountable barrier to success. Awanir (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; thanks for the explanation. – Scyrme (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Synthetic Aperture Radar
I see you have recently been working on the page History of synthetic-aperture radar. There is an opportunity here to correct an inaccurate statement in the first paragraph of that page (which is currently also present on the page Synthetic Aperture Radar). The inaccuracy is the claim that synthetic aperture radar techniques are applied in astronomy. To the best of my knowledge, aperture synthesis in radio astronomy is technically completely unrelated to the techniques of synthetic aperture radar. SAR exploits what might be called Doppler information due to the relative movement of the antenna and the target; aperture synthesis is interferometry. There is great scope for confusion because of the similarities in terminology. Theoh (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Both the main article and the split off history article make references to it having been used by spacecraft, and the history article has much content regarding applications in astronomy. However, I'm not an expert so I don't know whether the content is correct. I only helped to organise the material provided by other contributors. I wrote the summary in the lead section of History of synthetic-aperture radar under the assumption that the material given was correct. Are you sure it is incorrect? It seems plausible to me that the same technology used for imaging terrain on Earth could be used by satellites studying other planets.
 * If the material provided sounds questionable to you, you could tag it with dubious and start a discussion at the article's talk page. Someone more informed may be able to better address your concerns than me. You could also add the disputed banner to the top of the relevant section or article to draw more attention to the issue.
 * If you know you're definitely right and have relevant references, just go ahead rewrite the problematic text. I won't object. When you edit History of synthetic-aperture radar the excerpt on the main article will automatically update. – Scyrme (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scyrme SAR has been used in space probes, but that doesn't fall under the heading of radio astronomy.
 * What we're up against here is unsourced claims like "SAR has been used in radio astronomy for many years to simulate a large radio telescope by combining observations taken from multiple locations using a mobile antenna." which, per my assertion, is just wrong. The general problem is that Synthetic aperture radar and Aperture synthesis (astronomy) are unrelated technically and historically speaking, but people are inclined to assume that they share technological principles.
 * I could use, but the claims are unsourced, and the documentation says  is for use in the case of sourced claims.
 * It is not enough for me to just delete the unsourced claims like the one I quoted, or remove the wikilink which currently exists between Aperture synthesis and History of synthetic-aperture radar. There probably needs to be some substantive clarification on the page(s) to avoid confusion between the two technologies. Theoh (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could try Disputed and Expert needed to draw attention to questionable statements with no or poor quality references. I don't know enough about the specifics to write a well-referenced section clarifying the technical and historical differences between these technologies. For now, I've adjusted the lead section of the history article; does the change made work for you? – Scyrme (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scyrme That is a deft edit. I am going to be bold and remove an unsourced claim further down the article. Maybe we can agree on leaving the cross-links between Aperture_synthesis and History of synthetic-aperture radar in place even if they're not quite appropriate, since the histories recounted on the pages don't overlap, which should quickly become clear to readers. Theoh (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you remove the cross-link, if you think it may be misleading. My concern would be that History of synthetic-aperture radar was only very recently created, being split from Synthetic-aperture radar, and as a result the new article doesn't have many incoming links from other articles. Better connected articles are less neglected by editors. Perhaps you know of some more appropriate places to link the article? – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added links from Doppler radar and Carl A. Wiley. Theoh (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking
Please refrain from WP:OVERLINKing. Links meant for terms need explanation, not everyday English terms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't want to argue. I undid my own edit after noticing your earlier revert. – Scyrme (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is about Jyotirlinga. In case you intend to make a bigger issue out of this, I feel the term counts as a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article given the religious context. If you feel that doesn't apply, then feel free to remove the link. A single extra link hardly makes a sea of blue though; there are more important issues on this site. – Scyrme (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pentadic (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Pentadic (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That page was created when Pentadic was a disambiguation page not a redirect. I argued against turning it into a redirect on the talk page, but have not yet received a reply. See Talk:Pentadic. – Scyrme (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)