Talk:Cardinal: Difference between revisions
→Discussion: centralize at other page |
→Requested move: centralizing discussion as agreed |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===Survey=== |
===Survey=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].'' |
|||
*'''Support''' as nominator. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per my reason stated at [[Talk:Cardinal (Catholicism)]]. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User:TJ Spyke|<font color="Maroon">TJ</font>]] [[User talk:TJ Spyke|<font color="Maroon">Spyke</font>]]</span>''' 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 00:15, 3 December 2007
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Old stuff
How is the Cessna a sub-heading of the bird? SkyDot 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- The consistency of the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals can not be proved under ZFC.
- Is that correct? I thought the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals can (provably) not be proved, while it is open whether their non-existence can be proved. In other words, "the consistency of the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals" has not yet been proved while the consistency of their non-existence has been proved.
- Yes, your version is correct. That existence of inacc. cardinals cannot be proved is a direct consequence of the 2nd incompleteness theorem (one observes that the set of all sets with rank less than that of an inacc. cardinal form a model of ZFC). Incidentally, wouldn't it be better to have the main article at Cardinal number? "Cardinal" has a pretty well-defined religious meaning as well, and "cardinal number" is not outdated.
- not to mention the bird. And the baseball team.--MichaelTinkler
- Ok, I'm convinced. Cardinal number it is. --AxelBoldt
- As this refers to a subdivision/less obvious definition of the term, could it be emphasised that it is the number that is being referred to, not a religious person being away from their phone (g). Jackiespeel 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm convinced. Cardinal number it is. --AxelBoldt
- not to mention the bird. And the baseball team.--MichaelTinkler
Deleting Mike Cline Contributions
I am deleting or reverting any contributions I have previously made to this article for the following reason. I work for a company that practices and teaches Strategic Planning methodologies thus making my contribution to any article related to Strategy topics a conflict of interest an in violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines WP:COI --Mike Cline 13:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Cardinal is also a popular swiss beer brand, should I add it?
Revert
Anon. IP removed a link with no explanation. I reverted. -- SECisek 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
Cardinal → Cardinal (disambiguation) — We should really give the main article to what is now Cardinal (Catholicism). A look at "what links here" shows this is overwhemingly the main use involved. The mathmatical use is at Cardinal number, & if there were a predominant sports team using the term they could have "Cardinals" (I don't have a view on that). Few people can really link to "Cardinal" when they mean "cardinal bird", and the other uses are minor. This page should herefore become "Cardinal (disambiguation)" —Johnbod 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Survey
Please centralize voting and discussion at the survey at Talk:Cardinal_(Catholicism)#Requested_move Johnbod 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)