Talk:Point (topology)

I don't think this says anything more than where it is pointed to from the Point disambiguation page, and could be folded back in. Is this a subject for a VfD? (That was me.) I think it's a candidate for speedy deletion, once I edit the Point disambiguation page. (Still me.) Now signing. -- Arthur Rubin 00:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

More details. The content of the page hasn't changed in the 14 months since it was created by a non-member -- only links added or moved. I've edited the Point page to reflect that the term also is used in vector space theory and in abstract geometry. -- Arthur Rubin 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The redirect to Point (geometry)
I strongly disagree with the redirect to Point (geometry), unless that page is edited. It relates back or should be merged into the 3-indented line in the point page, rather than the 2-indented line referring to point (geometry) -- Arthur Rubin 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Arthur. I'm the one who changed the redirect to Point (geometry). I also had edited Point (geometry). Do you think that edit is insufficient? I made the redirect to Point (topology) because that article has more of the desired information (by the linking articles: ) than does Point. Paul August &#9742; 18:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've copied the following from my talk page:

Start of copied text


 * Your edit of Point (geometry) makes the redirect of Point (topology) acceptable. I still think the encyclopedia would be better off without Point (topology) at all, but this makes it acceptable to me.  Go ahead and re/revert, with my compliments. -- Arthur Rubin 20:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I will. Yes it is not a particularly useful article. But then it is only a redirect and redirects don't have to be particularly useful ;-). Paul August &#9742; 20:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

End of copied text

Paul August &#9742; 20:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)