Talk:Phase angle

"Phase angle (disambiguation)" does not follow Wikipedia naming guidelines

The article is misnamed, because it does not cite Phase angle as a primary content page. Nor is Phase angle sufficient to be a primary content page.
--Bob K (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper steps then is to either nominate Phase angle or for renaming and then we can rename this. Doing a cut and paste move is not the proper way to do this. GB fan 23:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...that was my point. The name Phase angle is already taken. But its content is not that of a "primary content" page. So either it should be deleted and this one renamed, or it should be a disambiguation page and this one deleted, as I had requested.
--Bob K (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your original point, I guess I wasn't clear in my response. You cut and paste moved this disambiguation page to Phase angle and then requested this be deleted. Cut and paste moves separate the text of the article from the history of the article and create a problem with attribution. Also in doing this you effectively removed the text at Phase angle from the encyclopedia without any discussion. There are two possibilities, either that text does not belong in the encyclopedia or it does belong. If you believe the article, Phase angle does not belong in the encyclopedia then you need to start a deletion discussion following the procedures at WP:AFD. If the article is deleted, then this page can be moved to that title. If on the other hand you believe the article Phase angle belongs in the encyclopedia but not as the primary name, then you can start a multiple move request asking for Phase angle to be moved to a disambiguated name and this to be moved to Phase angle following the procedures at WP:RM. If you need help with either of these two procedures let me know and I will help. GB fan 10:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe some other day, or perhaps this discussion will motivate someone else to tidy things up. It works the way it is, so no hurry.
--Bob K (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect synopsis of article Phase angle

Phase angle (which is effectively another disambiguation article) states:

In the context of periodic phenomena, such as a wave, phase angle is synonymous with phase.

But the synopsis here says only: "the angular component of the polar coordinate representation"
--Bob K (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it GB fan 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already did once. Perhaps will again, someday. Sorry to be so verbose... is there a cool WP shortcut I could have used?
--Bob K (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix was to remove all links to Phase angle from the page, that is not an appropriate fix. GB fan 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you said. That's your job. I appreciate that you tried (twice) to fix it yourself... above and beyond the call of duty. But you did not succeed, and I pointed it out. That's my job. And for the 3rd time: I will probably make another attempt someday, when I'm in the mood.
--Bob K (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Phase angle (vectors, phasors, and periodic phenomena) – wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]