Talk:Resolvent

Resolvent (Galois theory)
The notion of resolvent is a well established notion in Galois theory. The readers of WP looking for them need to be informed that they exist, despite the fact that the corresponding article is (yet) lacking and Galois theory needs to be expanded to include this notion. IMHO, it is a clear case of WP:IAR and it is the reason of my revert to reinclude the red link and its short description. D.Lazard (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created a stub for Resolvent (Galois theory). This allows to follow the guidelines of MOS:DAB, after editing Lagrange resolvents and Resolvent quadratic, which were redirects to this dab page and produced circular links. D.Lazard (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert edits simply because you disagree with part of them. You've undone other fixes I made, which I now have to implement again. The entries as you left them do not follow MOS:DAB. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, now that I'm looking at the difference between the version as I left it before and the current one, the only thing that's changed is that the third link now goes straight to Resolvent (Galois theory) instead of redirecting through the Lagrange link. Reverting was completely inappropriate. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, my revert was appropriate at the time I have done it, because your edit has introduced two links (Lagrange resolvents and Resolvent quadratic) that were, as that time, redirects to Resolvent. Your edit would have been appropriate, if, before, you had edited these redirect pages. These could not been correctly edited without creating the stub Resolvent (Galois theory). Thus, even if my second edit may look as a self revert, it is very different from that, being the final touch of an editing work on five pages: Resolvent (Galois theory), Resolvent quadratic, Lagrange resolvent, Lagrange Resolvent, Lagrange resolvents. Note that, among the last four, three redirected to Resolvent and the fourth was a link to a section in cubic function, which does not exists anymore. D.Lazard (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not link also to Resolution (logic)?
I have no clue how to do it correctly, but wouldn't it make sense to also have a link to the Resolution (logic) article? In this case a _resolvent_ is a clause obtained by applying a resolution rule to some other clauses. I think that would also deserve a spot on the disambiguation page, even if the resolvent itself doesn't have a own article. If not, just ignore or delete this.--129.132.149.105 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) D.Lazard (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)