Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellipses

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus is that neither ellipse nor ellipsis took precedence over the other. (Also, AfD is for deletion only—noms that propose non-deletion actions like redirection are eligible for speedy keep #1.) (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellipses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:TWODABS page, which I would propose has a clear primary topic in terms of long-term historical importance. Although the topics, Ellipse and Ellipsis are roughly equal in terms of pageviews, I believe that the mathematical concept is of greater long-term importance. One can write without ever using an ellipsis, but one can not do any advanced level of math (or space travel, or many other engineering feats) without using the mathematical ellipses. Since there are only two links on the page, this can be redirected to Ellipse and addressed in the existing hatnote on that page. bd2412 T 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect per nom, the page seems quite unnecessary; the plural of Ellipsis exists but is hardly a matter of daily utterance (i.e. it's an utterly implausible search term), so all that's left is Ellipse, and there's no call for a separate page for its plural. For a redirect/merge like this, there's no reason to bring it to AfD as we're not deleting anything. But I'd support you in your intention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't work with the redirect parts of the MOS an awful lot so someone set me straight if I misunderstand, but it seems like this should be a disambig that connects to both Ellipse (disambiguation) and Ellipsis (disambiguation), since neither (being disambigs) are a probable intended target, but any one of the articles they each disambiguate could pluralize as ellipses. Keeping this as a second order disambig means we don't have to make the double judgment of first which word the reader intends and second which version of that word they intend. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. This is completely reasonable - someone who types "ellipses" is about equally likely to be seeking either of those things. Also, having done a lot of advanced math, I can tell you that conic sections, like most of classical geometry, are pretty unnecessary. Open an advanced math textbook, and you are much more likely to find an ellipsis (such as in 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯) than an ellipse. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• (In fairness I have never done any advanced level of space travel. However I strongly feel that astronauts should be familiar with both topics.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convincd there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Going through a disambiguation page in this case may take a few seconds longer, but will clear up confusion. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: this page provides a useful clear explanation and should be kept. PamD 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.