Talk:Derived ring theory
(Redirected from Draft talk:Derived ring theory)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Name does not seem to be correct
[edit]I have failed to find the words "Derived ring theory" in either Google Books or Google Scholar. I therefore think that the article needs to be moved back into the draft space, as its subject apparently is not an accepted mathematical term to begin with. For the avoidance of doubt, derived commutative algebra is a legitimate term. Pinging @TakuyaMurata:. Викидим (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The topic is studied under various names, like derived commutative algbera. As we have, ring theory, a natural name can be derived ring theory for the encyclopedic purposes. When there's a standard term, editors need to choose some narural title for the topic. -- Taku (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think a discussion by now moved to the AfD entry with participants there way more knowledgeable than me. I will stay silent now beyond the things I already wrote, as I am way out of my depth here. In the rearview mirror, all these discussions, IMHO, could have been avoided if only a source and a page number with the definition of the term were explicitly provided (this would naturally had forced a different title). Викидим (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the difficulty with the article like this is that there are various names and definitions for specific kinds of derived rings but not such concrete things for the general idea of a derived ring. —- Taku (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone would object (I certainly wouldn't) to the text like "X is a term of algebraic geometry used by Y for Z, by Y1 for Z1, ...", etc. IMHO, coining a new generic term is better done in a peer-reviewed publication, as there many more pairs of smart eyes will be watching the discourse. Here, with the exception of few practitioners like you, en masse we are not equipped to understand the meaning of a new term, thus causing a problem with WP:V. Викидим (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- (In order to consolidate the discussion, I will answer this at the AfD page as this is an issue of verifiability, obviously a valid concern.) —- Taku (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone would object (I certainly wouldn't) to the text like "X is a term of algebraic geometry used by Y for Z, by Y1 for Z1, ...", etc. IMHO, coining a new generic term is better done in a peer-reviewed publication, as there many more pairs of smart eyes will be watching the discourse. Here, with the exception of few practitioners like you, en masse we are not equipped to understand the meaning of a new term, thus causing a problem with WP:V. Викидим (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the difficulty with the article like this is that there are various names and definitions for specific kinds of derived rings but not such concrete things for the general idea of a derived ring. —- Taku (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think a discussion by now moved to the AfD entry with participants there way more knowledgeable than me. I will stay silent now beyond the things I already wrote, as I am way out of my depth here. In the rearview mirror, all these discussions, IMHO, could have been avoided if only a source and a page number with the definition of the term were explicitly provided (this would naturally had forced a different title). Викидим (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)