Talk:Decoupling

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Decoupling page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Decoupling sections w/o corresponding Dab entries

The following sections from the former supposed-Dab Decoupling don't suggest supporting the creation plausible article topics:

Mere Dict def, i think:

== Rail transport ==
In rail transport, decoupling is the separation of two railroad cars by manipulation of their couplers.

Could be more than a Dict def, one hopes, but in absence of any examples of how, isn't yet:

== Inventory management ==
In Inventory Management, decoupling allows economy of scale within a single facility, and permits each process to operate at maximum efficiency rather than having the speed of the entire process constrained by the slowest.

Again, how? -- even tho why is made adequately clear:

== Nuclear testing ==
In underground nuclear weapons testing, decoupling refers to the attempt to prevent some of the bomb's energy from transmitting as seismic waves. This makes it more difficult for outside observers to estimate the nuclear yield of the weapon being tested.

There may be an article that covers this process; i'm not going to be the one to hunt it down, and that needs to be done before there's an entry for "decoupling in linear algebra":

== Mathematics == [in linear algebra]
In linear algebra, decoupling refers to the rearrangement of systems of equations so that they are independent of each other.

--Jerzy•t 07:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These pieces must be found in the corresponding broader articles; if not found they must be added there, and the corresponding redirects, possibly of type {{R with possibilities}}, created. - Altenmann >t 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved.
The consensus was this is a renaming proposal which has the effect of deleting another article. A PROD of Decoupling was contested, and no AFD has been opened, so the target remains an article, so there is no point in keeping this discussion open. If there is an AFD of Decoupling, and if it is closed as "delete", then a fresh move nomination could be made. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling (disambiguation) → Decoupling – I killed "decoupling" because is was nothing but inflated disambig page that collected totally unrelated topics. THere is nothing to write about the word "decoupling" itself beyond dicdef. - Altenmann >t 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) - Altenmann >t 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the deletion, since the article unsuccessfully attempted to present a unified concept where none exists, and support the proposed move. bd2412 T 21:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close we should handle deletion through WP:PROD or WP:AfD instead of turning a page into a redirect and then requesting another page be moved over it. This seems a contravention of process, since deletion is an important process on Wikipedia. I will revert the redirection and add a PROD instead. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the PROD was refused, so an AfD will need to be requested -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, per WP:NOTBURO. It would be prudent to notify relevant WikiProjects and editors who have done significant work on the article, though, as we would for AfD. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can carry on the move request. Obviously, the move would quash the existing article, but there's no need to have two separate discussions to reach that end. If necessary, we can extend the time by a few days. bd2412 T 14:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone objected to the PROD, and this is in essence acting just like a PROD (7 days, not listed at AfD lists), unless you want to move that page to decoupling (term) or something, it seems to me as to require an AfD. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD is deletion without discussion. This is a discussion. bd2412 T 14:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about a move taking place on a page other than the article which would be deleted if the move is completed. That does not seem right. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a notification of Talk:Decoupling. It's not like anyone's trying to hide anything. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the notification when I PRODded decoupling. But the nominator should have placed the notification. (or User:RMCD bot should automatically place such notifications, as it does for multimoves; but which it currently does not do) -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For articles, the normal deletion processes place a rather conspicuous notice on the article (not an easily overlooked note on the talk page) that the article is being considered for deletion, and also adds the article to corresponding deletion categories. I don't see any of that with this back door approach to deletion. Yes, RMs might sometimes result in deletion of pages without much in the way of content or edit history, but I don't see that is the case here. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion re Decoupling (mathematical analysis)

A presumably interested colleague has asked me, on my talk page, about Decoupling (mathematical analysis):

I am dubious about this article. Can you shed any light on it, for example by way of verification in independent reliable sources?

and i am about to respond on its talk page, in the belief the question is prompted by the move request.
--Jerzy•t 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion on "Uncouple"

I notice we have a disambiguaiton page called uncouple, seems like it should merge here? -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AFD per request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

replace decoupling with decoupling (disambiguation) -- 28 February 2014

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoupling. - Altenmann >t 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.