Talk:Parity problem (sieve theory)

Karatsuba phenomenon was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Parity problem (sieve theory). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Untitled

The Karatsuba phenomenon has no relation to the sieve theory and methods etc: I deleted the part which has no relation to the name of the topic indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.30.9 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To administrators: please delete the rediraction from "Karatsuba phenomenon" to this page "Parity problem (sieve theory)", it's stupid.91.79.183.226 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parity problem (sieve theory)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Assess at B, Low == Article is in pretty good shape (if I do say so myself). Would benefit from quotes from Selberg (either his original 1949 paper or his Lectures on Sieves), and would benefit from more description of the parity-sensitive sieves.--Uncia (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– This is very obviously the WP:PRIMARY topic. The existence of the syntagm "parity problem" in the other dabbed article is not more prominent with respect to the term "parity problem". The current page at "Primary problem" is a disambiguation page; that page should be at Parity problem (disambiguation) and this page should be at Parity problem. —Alalch E. 14:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ophyrius (he/him[reply]
T • C • G) 14:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doing both moves would cause a WP:ONEOTHER problem. The second entry at the DAB page does not have an article on its own, but refers to two other articles (even though DAB entries are only supposed to have one blue link as far as I know). So, I think we should only do the first move, deleting the DAB. Parity problem (disambiguation)Parity problem (disambiguation) should be tagged with G14 afterwards. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 10:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall I have fixed the second dab entry to make it MoS-compliant. What are your toughts? —Alalch E. 23:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Entry looks good now, but the ONEOTHER problem would still be there. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 10:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a ONEOTHER dab because it has two entries and one is the primary topic. However, as both entries are valid even though there are only two of them, the dab is not (and is not going to be) eligible for G14. But it may be deleted in an AfD. An AfD can be started even now, while this RM is running. —Alalch E. 11:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]