Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 20

June 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2015.

Category of graded vector spaces[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was refine to Graded vector space § Homomorphisms. Der yck C. 21:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category of graded vector spaces → graded vector space (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect needs to be deleted since the target does not discuss the topic. Taku (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We haven't Category:Graded vector spaces. It sends one through the hoops (or rather, the first grade of graded vector spaces). Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What would be an ungraded vector space in apposition? TOne with no speed limit or tarmac? That is to say, the graduation is a differentiation useful to mathematicians, I am sure, but for a general encyclopaedia this is too much. THe general reader such as me either has never heard of 'em, or if he has, will happily search for the target name not this WP:RFD#D8 convoluted redirect. Vector space is vague enough as it is, all you have to do is cobble together two or more variables and you have created a space, give them somewhere to go and you have a vector. Hardly tricky. But WP:WikiProject_Mathematics might have an expert opinion (that is to say, WP:CONSENSUS) so I'll cross-ref there. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Si Trew: Some your comments make you appear quite confused. The "category" referred to has nothing to do with anything like Wikipedia categories, nor is it about assigning each vector space to some particular category. Notice this sentence from the article: "For a fixed field and a fixed index set, the graded vector spaces form a category whose morphisms are the graded linear maps." The word "category" is used in a technical sense known to mathematicians. See, for example, the article called Category of rings or the one titled Category of topological spaces. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does not help that at the target with this revision it has been changed by the nominator, to add an infobox. All good work, but one step at a time. Procedural close please, because we are not discussing the same article from when it was listed. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The target was not changed with that revision? And adding the info box is prescribed as the first step at WP:RFD#HOWTO. Or am I more confused then usual? —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be clear: this is about category theory, not about Wikipedia categories. See Category:Category-theoretic categories. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to section Graded vector space § Homomorphisms per D.Lazard's comment. Some time ago, Category of graded vector spaces used to actually have (unsourced) content. This content first was merged to Super vector space and then was rewritten significantly. Later again, the now existing redirect from Category of graded vector spaces to Super vector space was replaced by a redirect to Graded vector space which as far as I can see never had any content related to category theory. There is some discussion about this at Talk:Super vector space#Redirect. ~~So, as it is, I think this redirect only serves to confuse the reader.~~ —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if allowed. (If any content from this article was moved to graded vector space, Wikipedia's licensing requires attribution.) An article could exist for the "category of graded vector spaces", but there little reason to believe that it should. This redirect is confusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Relevant material now in article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to section. There is a question that would not be fixed by deletion: The morphism of graded vector spaces are not homomorphisms of vector spaces which are graded, and this should be said somewhere. This was already said in Graded vector space § Linear maps. I have edited this section to include the words of homomorphism, morphism, and to assert that graded vector spaces form a category. Thus, I suggest to redirect category of graded vector spaces to Graded vector space § Homomorphisms (the new name, less confusing that I gave to this section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per D.Lazard, who seems to have knowledge in this field. Retargeting has the added benefit of preserving the attribution history, thus we don't need to argue about whether or not it's necessary to preserve it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The delete votes here clearly did not engage a healthy dose of WP:BEFORE, and look very silly and ill-considered. The "category" in the title refers to category (mathematics), not WP:CATEGORIES. Other discussion includes childish snickering about the notion of "grading" (graded vector space). I see the Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well at RfD. The page needs to be kept because of the page history, so unless someone is willing to do a histmerge, it has to remain since deletion would technically be a violation of the GFDL. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Portal:Current events/2006-07-01[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep all. Der yck C. 21:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-01 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 1 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-02 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 2 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-03 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 3 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-04 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 4 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-05 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 5 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-06 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 6 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006-07-07 → Portal:Current events/2006 July 7 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are unnecessary redirects from titles with the date written in the yyyy-mm-dd format. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as harmless WP:RFD#K3. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - harmless, all point where they should. Ivanvector (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Still accurate, and redirects are cheap anyway. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Portal:Current events/2006 August[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep both. Der yck C. 21:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Current events/2006 August → August 2006 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Portal:Current events/2006 September → September 2006 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are unnecessary redirects from titles with the year written before the month. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both as harmless, as above. I can't see WP:DATE coming into play here with the titles of articles. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Si. It's a little bit odd to redirect from Portal: namespace to a mainspace article, but those articles transclude the daily current events portals from those months as an archive, so this usage is entirely appropriate. It's just a different date format. Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.