Remove needless nitpick-expections

[eerovaher]

Description

If the documentation build on RTD doesn't raise warnings about reference targets not being found then there is no reason to have exceptions for such warnings.

• By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

[github-actions]

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

[github-actions]

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

[mhvk]

Thanks for the clean-up! For some, I have no idea why they didn't work before, for others no idea why they still are necessary, but happy to take the reduction! Approved since the readthedocs build succeeded.

[eerovaher]

For some, I have no idea why they didn't work before, for others no idea why they still are necessary...

I did not look into that at all. I just deleted everything in the file, built the documentation locally and restored all the exceptions that were still needed. Now that the clutter has been removed it should be simpler to look into why some of these exceptions are still needed.

[pllim]

As for numpy.core vs numpy._core here, won't this come back to haunt us when numpy 2.0 is released and RTD picks it up? 🤔

[eerovaher]

I'd rather not worry about this unless there is proof this is worth worrying about.

[pllim]

We might just end up reverting a few of these lines when numpy 2.0 is released, so what is the point of removing it too soon? Should this PR wait till after numpy 2.0 is released?

[pllim]

This comment mentions linkcheck, so I want to run linkcheck job but the skipping CI in commit has prevented this.

[eerovaher]

I'm converting this to a draft in response to #16288 (comment) and we can have another look at this once numpy 2.0 has been released.

[pllim]

Thank you for your understanding!