Talk:Mr

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

The Translingual definition should be deleted for the same reason we don't have an entry relative molecular mass; many things in chemistry can be relative, and the standard way to denote that is to place a subscript r after the notation used for whatever is relative. As an aside, it doesn't even have the right entry title, which would be Mᵣ, so even if you vote to keep it should be moved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closed as no consensus: Nobody other than the nominator has voted in this and there have been no new votes in a month and a half. No reason to keep this open any longer. Purplebackpack89 23:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2015–February 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Mr

Reposting in RFD; PB89 closed it last time despite nobody else having commented. From last time: "The Translingual definition should be deleted for the same reason we don't have an entry relative molecular mass; many things in chemistry can be relative, and the standard way to denote that is to place a subscript r after the notation used for whatever is relative. As an aside, it doesn't even have the right entry title, which would be Mᵣ, so even if you vote to keep it should be moved." —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The previous nomination had 100% support. It shouldn’t have been kept. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It had one vote, Ungoliant, and it was dead for over a month. There certainly wasn't a consensus for deletion... Purplebackpack89 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The nomination was posted in the proper channel, was active for more than the required time (in other words, went through the typical protocol), and despite this no one expressed their opinion that it should be kept. Please stop trying to impose needless bureaucracy on Wiktionary. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, for editing a dictionary, you have a poor idea of what "consensus" means. You can't have consensus of one; you shouldn't delete articles just because a single editor wants them deleted. If you thought it should've been deleted before, why didn't you a) vote in the previous discussion, or b) close the discussion yourself as delete? Also, you're one to talk about needless bureaucracy, as you opposed the reforms I suggested to RfD a few weeks ago. Purplebackpack89 15:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I (and everyone else) opposed your reforms because they were stupid.

And it’s not like Metaknowledge secretly deleted the entry or held a secret RFD. He went through the proper channels and if people wanted it to be kept, they could very well have said so.

Re a) and b): because I didn’t care. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't care then, why care now? Oh, right, you only care now because it's an excuse to discredit me. Gotcha. As I said, I stand 100% behind my decision to close this as "no consensus", and will continue to close any discussions without obvious deletion votes other than the nominator's as "no consensus". Deleting an entry is serious business, and, except in speedy deletion cases, it should require the assent of multiple editors. Purplebackpack89 15:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Woah! You saw right through me! Indeed I’m in a murderous jihad against poor innocent Purplebackpack.

By the way, Purplebackpack, only one user commented on your hat collection request. Apparently you don’t mind that. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside the misuse of the charged term "hat collecting" and the complete lack of comparability between user rights and RfD, I count two users: the OP and the granter, both of whom supported granting rollback. The previous discussion I closed had an OP, but nobody else. Had an additional editor supported deletion, I probably would not have closed it the way I did. Purplebackpack89 16:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen entries kept for lack of consensus before when only the nominator has commented. It's not a new practice by any means and I see no reason to single out Purplebackpack89 for that reason. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete, but I think PB89 was justified in closing the RFD as "keep" - a lack of objection is not the same thing as support. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think PBP was technically correct in closing it this way, but the polite thing to have done would have been to tag it with {{look}} and/or have said something like "I plan to close this in a week as 'kept, no consensus'. Does anyone object?", and to have waited a reasonable period for a response before closing. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• This sounds like an RfV question to me. Is it ever actually used this way, perhaps by people whose keyboard lacks a convenient way to make the formal notation? bd2412 T 16:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  It's not an RFV question, because it's a notational sum of parts (just as relative molecular mass is). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  You mean in the sense that 2x in an algebra problem is literally just 2 and x? bd2412 T 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  Seems to me this is less like 2x and more like ln. Purplebackpack89 03:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  But the first post in this thread points out that "r" means relative in general. You can't put the "n" from "ln" on anything else: "ln" is a unit. Equinox ◑ 03:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  You know, the more you guys keep talking, the more I'm convinced I made the right decision the first time, and we shouldn't even be having this time. Keep. This is an abbreviation, and abbreviations can be kept even if they abbreviate something that is SOP. Purplebackpack89 03:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  LOL, I smashed your bad analogy and so now you're jumping back to "lala, I can't hear you". Delete then. Equinox ◑ 09:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  I don't think you have, @Equinox...is the "r" a separate number? If so, is it a variable or a constant? Seems to me that M_r is a (single) variable in and of itself. Also, smashing the "ln" analogy doesn't result in automatically voting deleting. You, @Equinox, haven't even given a reason for delete, while Ungoliant's reason seems to be "delete because it shoulda been deleted before and I hate PBP". The OP's rationale was that the term this is an abbreviation of is SOP; but abbreviations need not be abbreviations of CFI-passing words to be kept. If M_r itself is SOP, then we'd have to create an entry for [[_r]]. P.S.: You can't pull the "n" from "ln"...but you can pull the l, because the l stands for logarithm and you can have logarithms of numbers other than e. Purplebackpack89 14:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  We should have an entry for ᵣ, that's true (putting sub tags in [[]] is bad markup, by the way, and won't produce a link). It's not an acronym nor an abbreviation, but instead a notation, and an SOP one at that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The prime symbol might be a better example. You can attach the prime symbol to a wide variety of letters, but it always means essentially the same thing. Similarly, you can have C_r (relative concentration), ρ_r (relative density), Q_r (relative charge), and you can stick _r onto any other quantity whenever you have a problem that's easier to solve with relative measurements rather than absolute ones. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Is this comparable to the "G" in Gm, Gmol, Gcd, etc.? bd2412 T 15:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • In a way, yes. But "gigamole" is one word, with "giga-" as a prefix. "relative mass" is two words, and the "relative"/"_r" is an adjective. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • IMO, it doesn't really matter if it's one, two or three words, if it's an acronym or abbreviation... Purplebackpack89 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Smurray. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• PBP closure was fine; one supporter does not consensus make. Abstain so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)