Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 July 25

Four types of error → Type I and type II errors
The nominated redirect was deleted. Kimchi.sg 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Move was done because the name was misleading; it's still misleading. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Someone looking for information on "four types of error" will be taken to this target article which explains the situation on alternative proposals quite well, thus illuminating someone who would otherwise have remained ignorant. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem was that the number of types of (statistical) error depends on the reference, some only have the specified 2, some 3, and some 4.  Perhaps we should create redirects from two types of error] [[two types of error and three types of error, as well.  I still lead toward Delete as nominator.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Make it redirect to Error and fix any links that are really talking about types of statistical errors (or more specifically, statistical hypothesis testing). The phrase "four types of error" could relate to just about anything. Kotepho 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kotepho.  Gang sta EB   ~(penguin logs) 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was the one responsible for the allocation of title "Four types of error". It was constructed as an attempt to signal that all of the things associated in the article (which had previously been widely dispersed throughout the Wikipedia) were, in fact, in one place.
 * In all of my rather comprehensive interaction with the literature in the various academic domains, I can not remember ever coming across such a group title (i.e., "Four types of error"), However, as I indicated in the article -- and, no doubt, driven by the notion of "errors of the first kind" and "errors of the second kind" -- we do find some writers speaking of "errors of the third kind", and just a handful of writers speaking of "errors of the fourth kind".
 * Now that the "Type I and type II errors" article far better represents the state of affairs in the literature, and now that it has been reorganized into a far more coherent form, I can see no reason of any kind for the continued existence of "Four types of error". I am in favour of removing the redirect. Lindsay658 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' 
 * Delete per Lindsay - I have taken college statistics and "Four types of errors" is WP:OR at best, misleading at worst. And no offense to GangstaEB, but simply given his age, it's highly unlikely he's ever taken statistics (and thus would not know what this is about).  -- Cyde↔Weys  21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (see comment above) Lindsay658 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, redirects are cheap, so might as well create Five types of error, Six types of error, etc., all as redirects to this page, because, hey, redirects are cheap, and it doesn't matter how factually incorrect or misleading they are ... right? -- Cyde↔Weys  06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have taken college-level statistics, and I'd call Type I and Type II errors by their name, not by some generic "Four types of error".  Thisthema  n  20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Move Log → Requested moves
The nominated redirect was deleted. Note also that it was created by pagemove vandalism. — freak([ talk]) 18:10, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC) Incorrect cross-namespace redirect. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' 
 * Delete because we really shouldn't be encouraging editors to use the main namespace to look up project matters. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. → No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
The nominated redirect was deleted. — Jul. 25, '06  [14:15] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] > Supposed shortcut but title is longer than the target page (which isn't very good anyway) Stifle (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.' 
 * Keep, harmless. The only first thing on that entire page that made me laugh was the inclusion of this shortcut.  =)  Powers 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, it's a lot funnier than it was before. Or maybe I'm just in a more easily amused mood.  Powers 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)