See the page history to retrieve old threads.

I figured you might like this, especially the appendix. (Note the author.) [1] Tito Omburo (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about it. It's certainly something, though I wouldn't describe it as interesting. I suspect many of our math articles in Wikipedia would actually look like this document to non-math editors. -- Taku (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L-curve, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my reply in the talkpage of the article. Needless to say, just because one editor believes there should be a maintenance template, that doesn't mean it cannot be removed. -- Taku (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing. UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you crossed a line. Threatening a fellow editor will actually block you from editing. -- Taku (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an intervention so I have reported the incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UtherSRG_reported_by_User:TakuyaMurata_(Result:_). -- Taku (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Taku. That was a messy situation, and I hope you don't encounter too many more like it. The feedback I have for you is that I think the community generally views tags differently from you. For the most part, I've experienced editors leaving tags until the problem is obviously fixed or until discussion shows consensus for removal. You're almost certainly aware of it, but you may want to reread WP:WTRMT. At one point in the discussion you said "if there is an objection, one editor cannot insist on it, right?", and my experience is that most editors would say that tags should remain even if one editor objects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the community I think (which was kind of my point in my closing comment at the noticeboard). My experience is that I have almost never had any disputes over tags with other math editors (usually disputes are over content or notability) but such a dispute tends to occur with NPP editors or AfC editors. I suspect because they are used to dealing with new users, they tend to insist on maintenance templates over an objection. In the case in question, my objection was simply: one tag was redundant with the presence of another tag. The other party disagreed. So, the dispute was more of over an appropriateness of putting a tag that I find redundant; and I think I'm right to think no editor can unilaterally overrule an objection when trying to add stuff to the article, including a template. In fact, at the noticeboard thread, ToBeFree wrote "Wikipedia places the burden of proof or the onus to obtain a consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material"; they clarified the material includes a template. Taku (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that NPP or AFC editors end up in tag disputes more than math editors generally, since articles tend to be tagged when they're new or under review, and NPP/AFC articles are both. I understand your objection to the tag and don't have a comment. I didn't read TBF's comments as explicitly including templates as material covered by WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS, but I don't mind conceding the point for the sake of discussion. Even if that BURDEN/ONUS point is a good one, it is my experience that the community frowns on repeated removal of maintenance tags by one party in a two-party dispute. My goal here is to share that experience with you, in case it is helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Yeah, neither WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS nor WP:BLPRESTORE apply to maintenance templates. I was trying to explain that this general principle occurs in various policies. Regarding the status quo, WP:PREFER offers this option and I took it in this case, but it's an admin-only option and it's optional. Users who are not acting administratively should never revert for the sole purpose of restoring a "status quo".) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for clarifying. Taku (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the article is protected. Regarding the §.Fundamental group, the following reference seems to require the curve to be non-singular. Ref:Nakamura, Hiroaki (2011). "On Galois rigidity of fundamental groups of algebraic curves" (PDF). Non-abelian Fundamental Groups and Iwasawa Theory. pp. 56–71. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511984440.003. ISBN 978-1-107-64885-2. unsingned by User:SilverMatsu.

The protection is over (so you can edit the article). As for the smoothness, I don't think it's necessary a requirement but just that is common to consider a smooth curve. -- Taku (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we explain the weak ω-category that appears when defining the weak n-category in the Leinster's survey? For example, adding a section of ∞-category to the weak n-category, or creating a ω-category? Also, for clarity, we might have to call it "Leinster's weak ω-category" or "Batanin's weak ω-category".

• Leinster, Tom (2001). "A Survey of Definitions of n-Category". arXiv:math/0107188.

SilverMatsu (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a weak n-category, since Leinster's approach is somehow different from quasi-category one. By the way, the question is somehow related to my proposal to have an article on n-category in general. The proposal is at the talkpage of the weak n-category page. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but I added my comment to the Weak n-category. I'd like to link to this discussion from the article's talk page. Should I use a permanent link?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a consensus to merge strict n-category and weak n-category. Closer also agreed to the merge. --SilverMatsu (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Random closed set and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TakuyaMurata! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kobe Kaisei College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No refs on page for many years. unencyclopedic content. Needs TNT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMWt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kobe Kaisei College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobe Kaisei College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chiaki Takahashi (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer needed, as WP:ONEOTHER, based on the unopposed RM Talk:Chiaki Takahashi#Requested move 15 June 2025 (Special:Permalink/1298233662).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to find a reference for this edit of mine? I think it's correct, and broadly consistent with categorical references I have found, but I have been frustratingly unable to find a clear and explicit statement. I wanted to link Kan extensions in this section, and felt it was important to give some context. Tito Omburo (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tito Omburo:The following references may be relevant.--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref:Cicogna, G. (1978). "Examples of Functor Adjunctions in Elementary Analysis". The American Mathematical Monthly. 85 (4): 260–262. doi:10.2307/2321167. JSTOR 2321167.

Thanks for your contributions to Simplicial diagram. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Inertia stack. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Riemann's existence theorem. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

As general quality control the proof section should be completed, or this should not be in main.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a rule. If you don't believe me, you can ask any other edtitors working in math-related articles, for example, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. -- Taku (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Masayoshi Namiki has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the following discussion:WT:WPM#Lead sentence of Beck's monadicity theorem. I'm wondering whether the place to explain the -categorical version of Beck's monadicity theorem is the Beck's monadicity theorem or another article of related to Higher Algebra. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a note about the axiom of choice, but I wonder if anafunctors might be related?--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I don’t know that notion, so I cannot really say affirmatively or otherwise. —- Taku (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rezk (2022), the statement seems to relies on the appropriate form of the axiom of choice. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. We (I?) can update the statement using the ref. —- Taku (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, at the beginning of section 44 of Rezk (2022) were talking about quasi-categories, but when talking about AC in "the Fundamental Theorem of Category Theory", Rezk (2022) seemed to be talking about ordinary categories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the precategory, even if AC is assumed, that statement does not seem to hold. Is there an article on Wikipedia that explains precategory? (Or would it be better to add that counterexample to the Equivalence of categories?) Ref:Ahrens, Benedikt; Paige Randall North; Shulman, Michael; Tsementzis, Dimitris (2021). "The Univalence Principle (CHAPTER 3, Categories: an extended example, 3.2. Categories in HoTT)". arXiv:2102.06275 [math.CT]. --SilverMatsu (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more concise reference:Ahrens, Benedikt; Kapulkin, Krzysztof; Shulman, Michael (2015). "Univalent categories and the :Rezk completion". Mathematical Structures in Computer Science. 25 (5): 1010–1039. doi:10.1017/S0960129514000486.

AC is still required for strict categories, the statement fails even if AC is assumed for precategories, and AC is not required for the proof for saturated categories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond: it seems this kind of stuff is usually discussed in the context of constructible mathematics, where for example the matter of AC is important. But I don't know if many readers are interested in that aspect. On the other hand, in Wikipedia, we generally mention AC when it is used, as a matter of style. I will look at what reliable references are doing. -- Taku (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Riemann's existence theorem. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of Politicians has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 7 § List of Politicians until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Random closed set and for moving it to mainspace. I had completely forgotten about that draft! Cheers, – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 12:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. By the way, you can also move it to mainspace yourself. -- Taku (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a figure of "associativity coherence isomorphisms" for associativity isomorphism, but will I also create a figure of "unit coherence isomorphisms"? If it is necessary to explain 2-category, I will create it, but what do you think?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we need a separate article only for associativity, since as you said usually we need coherence isomorphisms for other conditions like unit. One possibility is to merge these into coherency (homotopy theory) as that article has a section on coherent isomorphisms -- Taku (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it makes sense to explanation both associativity coherence isomorphisms and unit coherence isomorphisms in the section on coherent isomorphisms.--SilverMatsu (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD results seem to be no consensus. I asked the closer and he said was no consensus to merge. (I thought the consensus was merge.) Would you like to discuss merging articles? I don't oppose with the merge to Coherency (homotopy theory). However, when explaining associativity isomorphisms, I am notsure whether to explain it as a concept related to the definition of semi-groupal categories (semi-monoidal category). In coherence (homotopy theory), associativity isomorphism is explained as a concept related to monoidal categories, and I think semi-groupal categories (monoidal category without unit isomorphisms) are a niche concept compared to monoidal categories., and perhaps just as niche as semicategories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Helion (publisher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero sources, zero evidence of notability, just a small ROTM business.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hagoromo Gakuen Junior College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Defunct 2-year college; no article exists for its network.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Monadic descent. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please do not restore content challenged under WP:BURDEN without adding inline citations to reliable sources. The policy specifically says "Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." This also means the source must be independent. A city website is not independent and really shouldn't be used to verify content. I restored the redirects for the present because of the lack of inline citations. Feel free to remove the redirects once inline citations have been added, but please do not restore any facts or sentences not directly supported with an inline citation per WP:BURDEN policy. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A note too on foreign language sources. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE states that whenever a foreign language quotation is used an English language translation should be provided. This applies too for references with foreign language titles. Our citation templates do have means to provide English language translations of book and website titles along with the original title. It's important to include the english language translation of every foreign language source used. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know the policy but it doesn't mean you can or should just soft-delete the article by redirecting the article. That's simply unproductive. Also, non-English sources are acceptable, since the idea is that editors not readers working on articles on non-English all be able to understand the non-English sources. If you insist on deletion, please use AfD. -- Taku (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is not deletion or soft deletion (which would be done through WP:PROD). The article history is there and can be can be accessed by any editor at any time. You can go back and improve the article the right way anytime. Removing unsourced content is allowed. Restoring content without adding inline citations is not allowed. The policy is at WP:BURDEN is very straight forward as to what can be done with unsourced material, and what must be done by those who want to restore that material. Just follow the policy.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually redirecorng an existing article is often considered a soft-deletion, as it becomes inaccessible to the public. Please read the paragraph starting at "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Especially "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." Why do you believe it's not possible to find reliable sources for the articles? Taku (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not true. Read the policy at WP:ATD and WP:Redirection and at WP:SOFTDELETION. They are not the same thing. I don't appreciate the edit warring, because frankly you are digging in when policy language is not on your side. I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I won't revert further, but it is really bad to restore content without inline citations. That is just willfully doing what policy explicitly says not to do.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very long-time editor and you're appearing you actually don't know how things are done. Please actually read WP:BURDEN. Especially the paragraph mentioned above. If the materials are not controversial, factually correct and we believe they can be verified by reliable sources, it's preferable to keep them and find and add reliable sources. You didn't answer my question: why do you believe it shouldn't be possible to find reliable sources. Anyway, I will wait for 24 hours until I start reverting again. As you must know, the edit warring is very unproductive. Taku (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a very long-time editor. You are ignoring the policy at WP:BURDEN (see the quoted green text above). It's your choice not to follow policy, but don't act like you are. You clearly are violating the guideline.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the page saying that you're allowed to redirect an article if it is unreferenced. Also, again you chose not to respond to my question: why do you believe it would be very hard or impossible to find reliable sources for real geographic entities? nd again you're ignoring the paragraph "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Of course, some very problematic materials should be removed but if they are not, a more productive process is to find and add sources not to remove them. Taku (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes I can. If an article is completely unverified and has zero inline citations I can in fact under WP:BURDEN blank the text. That is allowed. I can't delete the page though so I must do something with the page. As long as a redirection follows WP:RPURPOSE it can be done. This is something editors do routinely across the encyclopedia. It's surprising that you are not aware of this as a long time editor as many editors do this.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep ignoring what I said. So to repeat:

1. "Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." You believe the materials should be removed right now, not tomorrow. But today. It cannot wait. Why?
2. Why do you believe it would be very hard or impossible to find reliable sources for real geographic entities

About redirecting. That section has zero mention of redirect. So, you're simply making your own interpretation that you can just bypass an afd and soft-delete unreferenced articles. That's very non-standard interpretation and as far as I can tell doesn't have a community support. Taku (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that completely unverified articles shouldn't be allowed to remain indefinitely in article space. The article being redirected have all been unsourced a minimum of 19 years (some in this case being as long as 21 years). Plenty of time has been given to source these articles. As no editors have expressed interest in adding references in two decades, I chose to redirect them because I view this as an improvement to the encyclopedia. We shouldn't be housing completely unverified articles as this encourages rather than discourages article building in the right way under WP:Verification. Editors can have different opinions about how long to give editors a chance to verify material. I am of the opinion that once the article hits about the 15 year mark its time to redirect if there are still zero inline citations. That's a legitimate point of view. At some time enforcing WP:Verification policy can and should be allowed. Note too that tagging was tried on all of these articles and the tags themselves are 16 years old. 4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I must admit I didn't know the tags are that old (and that certainly affects my mind). It's true there are some articles that just don't get worked on especially, geo entries in non-Western world. What should we do about those old entities? From the perspective of readers, I believe even unreferenced articles can be useful so my view is that it is still preferable to keep them instead of redirecting them, mainly because the articles look factual at least (and the readers can choose to trust unreferenced articles or not). But I guess your argument we waited for too long is actually strong. So, I can agree on redirecting them if you must insist. -- Taku (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restore the redirects if you so choose. Or alternatively take the time to find an independent source and just add a couple citations (verifying all of it would be nice but I'd settle for a just a couple sentences at a stub level). It seems like you have the language skills to do it, which is part of why these articles get ignored on the English wiki (we don't have enough people who can read Asian languages and comfortably navigate them to source articles). As long as we see genuine attempts at improvement in verification I think keeping the article in article space is fine. The issue I have is we get thousands of completely unverified articles that just sit there forever with no movement for decades. Sometimes applying pressure on verification is what needs to be done in order to get the community to care about these very old articles with no sourcing. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why at least I added some references from Japanese Wikipedia; that's at least some improvement, right? I will see if I can add some citations too. Stubs are fine, as long as they are referenced. -- Taku (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some sources. As long as you are committed to trying to put in a citation or two in each article, I'll trust you to do that and be very happy. That's really my only expectation here is that we have a bare minimum of content verified to a cited source. It doesn't have to a highly developed article. Stubs are perfectly fine. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nakamura Gakuen University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakamura Gakuen University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lhasa (computing) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSOFT

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TakuyaMurata

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Homotopy dimension, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kasumori Station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasumori Station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daiichi University, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daiichi University, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kintetsu Hatta Station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kintetsu Hatta Station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Absolute neighborhood retract. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write this article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 07:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]