User talk:Chalst/archive-5

Archives:

User talk:Chalst/archive-1: From start (11 Aug 2004) to 28 Feb 2005
User talk:Chalst/archive-2: From 15 Mar 2005 to 28 Jan 2007
User talk:Chalst/archive-3: From 10 Apr 2007 to 4 Apr 2016
User talk:Chalst/archive-4: From 11 April 2016 to 29 January 2022

Dickson baronets

Regarding your comments in this AfD discussion (1), I've had a go at making a draft of what the two new articles might look like (2). Do you think that's acceptable?

Assuming the AfD suceeds, perhaps we should also AfD this article (3) and similarly split it into two new articles.

Also, do you think the new articles should be called "X baronetcy of X", or "X baronets of X"? I've gone with the former in my sandbox draft.

Regards, Ficaia (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia:- The title is the thing that endures when a baronet dies and that's called a baronetcy, so that seems to be the right term for the article. Yes, this looks good. Wrt. the Clifford baronetcies, I'd wait to see what happens with this AfD before proposing anything: we are at the mercy of the closer in terms of what is made of the rather complex AfD. Two things need to be decided on: first, what should we ask the closer to do? The technique is documented at Wikipedia:Splitting but I don't recall this being asked for at AfD. Second, the split articles should make reference to each other, since people may find X baronetcy of Y1 without realising there is also X baronetcy of Y2. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logic sourcing question

@Chalst: - which stable sources are meant to be basis of this article? I was under impression that universal algebra usually restricts not only quantifiers, but also avoids disjunctions and negations to focus only on atomic equalities. One could view disjunctions as term operations in multisorted FOL with boolean sort. Is this the direction? In any case, there are strong connections to term rewriting. I quite like the book

Logic for Mathematics and Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, 1998. ISBN 0-13-285974-2 by Stanley N. Burris ( http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/ ) that, unusual for an intro book on FOL logic, includes a chapter on equational proof systems, so maybe it could be used here?

@Vkuncak: - which article are we talking about? Is this something to do with Draft:Geometric logic? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the article (stub?) Theory of pure equality. I mixed up your talk page with articles, it seems. Vkuncak (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement

I apologize, I do not understand your question in the complaint and this was how I know how to send messages. 2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]