Talk:Root extraction

Balance
One admin added an expand suggestion and another says too long. Experienced editors: help find a balance, thanks. Pdecalculus (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bureau suggested separate articles may be needed for sections, anyone agree, disagree, or? Pdecalculus (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin chat/bb suggested a compromise would be to change this to "List of Root Extraction Terms" which would allow more of a balance in text than a disambig but less than complete articles on each heading, each of which might not be notable enough. I'm a scientist, roboticist and mathematician, not a Wiki policy guy, so I will leave this up to greater minds, and just keep adding links as other suggest them, thanks. Pdecalculus (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(moved from my talk to here...) Several editors have cleaned this up, and changed it to an article. If you or anyone else deletes I'm hoping you will also then create the numerous articles that it includes, as it was completely scattered on wiki before this referencing article/disambig or whatever you want to call it! Pdecalculus (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pdecalculus I tried the top part as a dab page. Now that bit is formatted as a dab I've double checked them. Looks to me like all the entries fail WP:DABMENTION (they don't use the term "root extraction"). The dab part doesn't work, the dab entries should be deleted
 * Mathematics part: So, my suggestion is remove all the non-mathematics ones and move it to a mathematical list article (with references). See WP:BROADCONCEPT. I'm tagging as such. Widefox ; talk 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both GREAT fix suggestions, I'll get to work on the main math topic, which is more my field, and then we can adjust the (disambig) split.Pdecalculus (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do these terms actually have anything common apart from the use of the same words? A disambig article might be useful, but trying to find conceptual unity seems a hopeless task.  And while we wait for resolution of that question - if this is a stub (and it doesn't look like a stub to me) What sort of stub is it? Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)