Talk:Non-associative algebra

Title

Shouldn't the title be consistent with the category? Fredrik Johansson 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge example

It appears that a discussion section was never created for merging Example of a non-associative algebra into Non-associative algebra. I see no reason why it shouldn't be merged, but we should have some discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if that article was usefully different, it is essentially where nobody would look for it. Merge! Rschwieb (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming to unhyphenated version

So recently, someone put through an automated request to hyphenate the category names to match the hyphenated article name here. If you try any easy check online, though, (like with googlebooks and google ngrams) you will find that the usage of the unhyphenated version has twice the usage of the hyphenated version. I think the name should be switched to match the lion's share of modern usage. I've been advised to rename the appropriate articles, and then request a category rename to fix all of this. I didn't want this to be a surprise. If there is some compelling argument to stick to the less popular more out-of-date hyphenated usage, you will have to let me know here. Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I also meant to imply that I would like to carry out this rename-move in the next few days. Rschwieb (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the proposal, but this might be an example of insufficient data to draw such conclusions. A factor of 2:1 on a google search count is not at all persuasive. As to whether one use is outdated, usage might be more separated geographically than by time. I think that a general (WP-wide) approach to hyphenation would be more sensible than a case-by-case for each article. WP:HYPHEN point 2 is relevant, and could be interpreted to suggest that if a prefixed word is well-used, the hyphen would eventually be omitted (and would suggest support for the move). Google ngrams is quite illuminating: aside from a period of two decades ending mid-90s when there was a lot more suddenly published, they're pretty well matched. — Quondum 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate any and all alternative evidence since I do not consider my linguistic researching skills to be first class. I can postpone longer, if necessary. Rschwieb (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Q I didn't realize including "algebra" would change the results so much! Also, I put "a" in front of both, and this is what happened. I think to support my case I'm going to have to look at modern book titles and content directly. Rschwieb (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That would support a contention that with reference to algebras as objects (and the class) as is relevant here, the non-hyphenated (nonhyphenated?) version is used (apparently exclusively). Given this, and the lack of opposition so far, it does not look like you're facing any resistance. If you have the energy, checking a few actual texts will give a more solid feel; I never trust ngram counts, since notable use gets swamped in the non-notable noise. (Though if an ngram cannot be found, is there any noise?) — Quondum 14:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)