Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Education history 1 → History of education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. The redirect grades like some sort of course that would be taught in a university or college. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - was part of a series of pagemoves in 2019 by Steve gao 98 who seems to have been under the impression that it was necessary to have numbered "drafts". Other similar redirects have already been deleted. A7V2 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to History#Teaching. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• History teacher → History of education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A "history teacher" probably more teaches the subject at History than the current target, so retarget to History. (Nominating instead of just doing it due to the redirect having a history of retargetings.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, and common sense. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History#Teaching which seems more appropriate than the whole article. But I wonder if this and the recently created History education are not better off being redlinks per WP:RFD#D10? A7V2 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2: See the edit summary when I created History education: summary. More or less, I created it since an article titled History education in the Netherlands exists; it could be possible that article may need to be renamed ... or even evaluated to see if it should continue to exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a general article on history education is much more viable than one on a sepecific country. I have already PRODed History education in the Netherlands. A7V2 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2: If that PROD gets approved, feel free to Ping me, and I'll most likely WP:G7 the redirect I created. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as proposed. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Either retarget as proposed or establish a page for "history education" like how there are other education pages that the different teacher redirects go to. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History#Teaching. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• School observation → Educational psychology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Children's behavior problems → Educational psychology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. In addition, this redirect is so specific that I'm not sure if there's any valid target for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serves no current purpose. — The Anome (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a fairly reasonable search term. I think although the current target doesn't explicitly mention this phrase, behavioural problems are discussed in the article, in particular the section Educational_psychology#Behavioral. That said, I think Child psychopathology is perhaps a better target, and better still might be some kind of DAB/set index where we could also include Developmental psychology, Child and adolescent psychiatry and Applied behavior analysis. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree that this term seems like it's a fairly reasonable search term. However, I believe it's just that: A search term. I believe trying to formulate someway to create a list article or disambiguation page based on this title would be unhelpful to our readers; I think this because primarily, none of these options are synonymous with the title of the redirect, but rather are topics which the subject of the redirect could relate to as a subtopic or a parent topic. In other words, I believe Wikipedia search results when looking up this term (Search results) would be more helpful than having readers pigeonholed into going to any specific page or list of pages when searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This makes sense. Looking at the search results I'm happy to delete. That said, looking around this subject area navigation between the various articles, and their relationships between eachother, do seem to require too much subject knowledge but that's far beyond the scope of RfD. A7V2 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of projects for use in physics education → Physics education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no such list in the target article. In addition, this redirect was an article for four days in 2006 before it was WP:BLARed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no such list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathematics education effects on the economy of the United States → Mathematics education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There does not seem to be any such topic mentioned in the target article. The content in the redirect's edit history was created as an article in 2008, but then was subject to a WP:BLAR about two days after it was created. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article formerly at this title was a personal essay about how the US is (was?) falling behind other countries with respect to mathematics education, making itso the article is entirely unsuitable for restoration. In addition, neither Mathematics education nor Mathematics education in the United States contain the word "economy", making them bad targets. Duckmather (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC); edited 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Algebra II/Trigonometry → Mathematics education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The situation with this redirect is a bit confounded. For one, the current target is someone accurate because both of these topics refer to some aspect of Mathematics education, though "Algebra II" is not mentioned in the target article. However, there is also a possibly WP:XY issue with these redirects since Algebra and Trigonometry are separate articles. Lastly, from what I recall about my previous mathematics education, there seems to be a considerable amount of intersection between the topics that are taught in "Algebra II" and "Trigonometry" to a point where trigonometry is almost considered part of algebra in whole and when someone refers to "Trigonometry", they are referring to algebra. For this reason, I think deletion may be the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The two topics are pedagogically related, but the use of the backslash implies an improper subpage in mainspace, and there doesn't seem to be a potential target that discusses both topics. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:XY. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the preceding opinions. There is no reason to lump these two together. If there is a redirect, it should be to Mathematics education in the United States, since these courses are unique to that country.--seberle (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivia (education) → Trivium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at the title of the redirect and the title and subject of the target article, I do not believe that readers who are searching at this term are intended to look up the target article. Recommend either deletion (preferred option) or redirection to Trivia (disambiguation) (secondary option; however, it does not seem this redirect refers to Trivia, but also doesn't seem to accurately describe any of the subjects listed at Trivia (disambiguation) either). Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Too specific for it to be useful, and there's no target or topic that this could possibly refer to. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to Religious philosophy. ✗plicit 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Divine philosophy → Theology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems this redirect, as titled, could also accurately describe or reference the subject at Religious philosophy. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Religious philosophy per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to Unmoved mover. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncaused cause → Unmoved mover  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Uncaused causer → Cosmological argument  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems the redirect Uncaused cause has had a bit of a back-and-forth with its target over the years. At the end of it all, these two redirects have different targets when they probably should have the same target. Between Cosmological argument and Unmoved mover, I'm thinking these should both target Unmoved mover since it seems like a topic which is included in Cosmological argument which the redirects refer rather than the argument itself. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to unmoved mover. — The Anome (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both to Unmoved mover as Template:R from synonym. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 retarget to Cosmological argument. ✗plicit 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy → Kalam cosmological argument  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From reading the target article, it does not seem clear that if the word "Kalam" or variations is excluded from the search term that the nominated redirect refers exclusively to the target. It seems that the target refers to a specific type of "Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy" and not all possible types of "Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy". It seems the article Cosmological argument goes into a bit of detail about cosmological argument and Islamic philosophy without mentioning any specific one, so it may be worth retargeting the nominated redirect there. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom to Cosmological argument, which is clearly a better target than the current one. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 speedy delete. CSD G7: the creator of the redirect has now requested deletion by adding a speedy deletion tag to the page. JBW (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Knook (chess) → Empress (chess)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Knook" as a name is purely an internet meme and, as such, is not reported in reliable secondary sources. When the redirect was created, this was listed as an alternate name for the piece, which got reverted as vandalism. The page this redirects to is currently locked due to people trying to add this name. This may fall under G3 of speedy deletion criteria. Randi Moth (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmmm... As a normal chess player (not any of the variants that add other chess peices), I have never heard of the Empress before too. But, I digress. A search only finds forums (unreliable) that use the term. Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No use in any WP:RS. — The Anome (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 converted to article and retarget Ginseng Coffee there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ginseng coffee → Coffee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ginseng Coffee → Coffee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on the page it is targeted to. Ginseng coffee was WP:BLARred in 2013 and Ginseng Coffee was a redirect to it until it resolved just to Coffee to avoid double redirect. TartarTorte 17:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I drafted a new stub under ginseng coffee. Regardless of what notability concerns may have existed in 2013, by 10 years later there's a lot of news coverage (though mostly in Italian and Indonesian rather than English) and a smattering of academic articles. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to article Ginseng coffee per 59.149.117.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) above, and redirect Ginseng Coffee to that article. — The Anome (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 22:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vinkov → Vinkov Vrh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Prod denied. There is no indication that Vinkov Vrh is known as Vinkov. UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a useful redirect given there is nothing else with the name. I see no value in deleting a redirect in this way. If someone knows the first element of the name but not the second then it would take them to the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vinkov isn't Vinkov Vrh, like Baton isn't Baton Rouge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference, of course, is that Baton is actually a word with its own disambiguation page (on which Baton Rouge does appear, incidentally!). Redirects are merely there to assist readers. Deleting this would be no more than unnecessary pedantry and not helpful in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a red herring, and even an inaccurate one at that: The article/page that is linked on Baton is Baton Rouge (disambiguation), not Baton Rouge (or its target Baton Rouge, Louisiana). (And see my "delete" vote for why I disagree with your statement "Deleting this would be no more than unnecessary pedantry and not helpful in any way.". Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • It was just an example, like Haywards Heath (isn't Haywards), Leamington Spa (isn't Leamington)... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition, having readers pigeonholed into going to an article where this term is a WP:PTM with no evidence it is an alternative name harms readers by preventing them from using Wikipedia's search results to locate other articles which may mention or go by (fully or partially) this term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Because this means "Vinko's peak", WP:PTM would allow for listing Vinkov Vrh at a disambiguation page for "Vinkov" because that's the specific part of the toponym. At the same time, it seems unlikely that the disambiguation page would grow, because it's not a very common term per se (it's more common as a root to other words, but that's besides the point here). I could only find a possible use case of Frano Vinkov Maroević [hr], but that in itself is dubious for the purpose of discussing ambiguity because Croatian surnames are not commonly formed with these Slavic patronymic customs so it's hard to imagine anybody would actually refer to that person mononymously as "Vinkov", rather he should be documented at "Maroević". There used to be a Bulgarian entry on the page, though, and there that would be a normal surname. Google couldn't find me any Винков on bg.wikipedia.org, though. Unless we can find WP:POTENTIAL to expand the disambiguation page, it's no better than the search engine for a hit and worse in case of a miss, so it's fair to get rid of it. --Joy (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neera Arya → Indian National Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Its a WP:HOAX. No historical sources cover it. Only fringe fake news websites promote this fake subject.

Best to delete it. Editorkamran (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/freedom-fighter-arya-dies-at-98-267948. The Tribune is a reliable source. Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishan Arya is not Neera Arya. Jay 💬 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm: I was going to edit my comment to reflect that, but just pretend my vote was a !delete Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found both a WikiData entry (Q108708829) and an entire Wikimedia Commons category for this probably-real, probably-fake, probably-a-bit-of-both fringe thing. Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD. Courtesy ping Materialscientist who had speedy deleted an earlier version as an A7, and Onel5969 who had reviewed the current version. Jay 💬 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: AfD would be waste of time. This is a hoax and should be treated as a hoax. Also see the below comment. Editorkamran (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore earlier vote and vote as delete Not mentioned in current target. However, looking at the history, I found an older version with 6 sources that looked good enough. So, either delete or restore. Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone-123-321 I have analyzed the sources below. Dympies (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax per WP:G3 The "Six sources" found here can be summarized as:

• An unreliable source from 2020.
• An article from 2021.
• Another article from 2021.
• Another article from 2021 from same website as above.
• Same source as above.
• An unreliable source from 2022.

None of this satisfies WP:RS, let alone WP:HISTRS. Its a hoax that has been promoted by like-minded unreliable publications, nothing else. Dympies (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I am still relatively new to this RfD gig (and Wikipedia as a whole), so the many policies WP have still confuse me to no avail. As for the reason why I !delete, per @Dympies Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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. There was no support for the suggested morphism article, and one of the participants felt that the current target may be ok. The retarget suggestion of the Regular function redirect, and the phrasing changes at the affine and morphism articles suggested by D.Lazard may be done independently. Jay 💬 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ring of regular functions → Affine variety  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Regular function redirects to Morphism of algebraic varieties. While this redirect is linked there (section "Regular functions"), the concept is a lot more general than the coordinate ring (also linked there and also redirecting to Affine variety), so I suggest it be redirected to the morphism article instead. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This one seems tricky. The problem is that the morphism article doesn’t really discuss the ring of regular functions (maybe they should?). Also, the ring of regular functions on a variety is almost always used when the variety is affine. So although the concept is more general (as you pointed out), the current redirect may be ok; at least there is no better target right now as it seems. —- Taku (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, the space of the global sections of the structure sheaf of a scheme is called the affine ring of the scheme, which is the same as the ring of regular functions on it when the scheme is a variety. The affine ring currently redirects to glossary of commutative algebra. I don’t know the scheme sense is covered elsewhere. —- Taku (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Talk:Affine ring, Talk:Regular function, and Talk:Morphism of algebraic varieties for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retarget Regular function to Affine variety. Firstly, it is silly to redirect a concept concerning a single variety to an article about relations between two varieties. Secondly, the definition in Morphism of algebraic varieties ("A morphism from an algebraic variety to the affine line is also called a regular function") is incorrect and should be written "The morphisms from an algebraic variety to the affine line can be identified to the regular functions" (the identification is clear from the case ${\displaystyle m=1}$ in section "Definition" of this article). Thirdly, is not clearly explained in either article why a "regular function" is called a "function" (it is a function that maps the closed points of the variety to the ground field; it is regular, since its domain is the whole variety). However it is much more natural to provide this explanation in Affine variety than in Morphism of algebraic varieties (the concept of a regular function predates from more than 50 years the concept of morphisms). D.Lazard (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For an opinion on the Regular function redirect suggestion, pinging Taku as the editor who had blanked and redirected Regular function to Morphism of algebraic varieties. Jay 💬 07:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

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 delete. ✗plicit 09:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Saridharam → Santal people#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete unless there is clarity on whether the religion of the Santal people is referred to by the word "sari". See a previous RfD about Sari Santal created by the same creator and which pointed to the same target. Jay 💬 02:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to explain why... Someone-123-321 (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).