Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I'm curious as to how far back the n-lab should go. I just created "constant morphism" but was debating whether or not that was too basic. I then found that Toby had edited it and made a Wikilink to "constant function". I'm curious as to what people think is the baseline for the n-lab.
I figure that something like "constant function" is a prerequisite for most of the n-lab. On the other hand, it might be an idea to have some "examples" pages showing how lots of the structure works for particular categories. Then "constant function" to link to the examples page for Set. This is a bit more pedagogical than perhaps we are at the moment.
<div>
To begin with, I don't think that anyone has to write <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/constant+function">constant function</a> just because I made a link to it. But if (although in this case I find it unlikely) a lot of links to it start appearing, then that would be a sign that we really do need to write it.<p>If we did write it, of course, then we would have to write it as an example in category theory, not just as a definition in set theory. So we'd say how it matches the definition of constant morphism in Set (of course) and can also be defined as factoring through a terminal object, link to the pages on both those concepts, and refer to the concept of constant functor or any variations on that. In other words, we would want to mention its internalisations and categorifications, if anyone ever decides that its worth writing at all.<p>I don't have any doubts about <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/constant+morphism">constant morphism</a> whatsoever. If you use the concept, then you need to explain what it means, particularly that it does <em>not</em> mean factoring through a terminal object. All category-theoretic concepts, no matter how basic, are valid pages in my opinion.</p></p>
</div>
Ah, I see. The 'constant function' proto-link was not a 'Someone needs to make a page on constant functions' but rather, 'if someone makes a page on constant functions, then this page ought to link to it.'
Is this usual Wiki-policy? It's certainly a reasonable point of view (and one that I'm fully prepared to work with - though I'd be tempted to scale down the intrusiveness of hanging Wiki-links if it is the general policy).
Your statement about 'all category-theoretic concepts' being fair game is pretty much what I was using as my working rule, hence my noticing the 'constant functions' link, I guess.
Seems reasonable enough. My only issue,then, is with how hanging links are displayed. I don't mind the question marks if they are temporary, but having something like: "a constant morphism in Set is a constant function?" makes it look as if we're not sure. "Bad form" as Captain Hook would say. Maybe I'm alone in this, but if not we could tweak the CSS so that hanging links looked like normal links except for the darker background. Then you click on the actual word to be taken to the create page link rather than the question mark. Or something.
I think a darker background solves the problem for colour-blind readers. Different coloured links can be mildly problematic as people can have default colours for links that they have and haven't followed so a followed-link can look like a non-existent link and vice versa.
It's possible to change the CSS on a local level, isn't it? I could try modifying Frolicher spaces to remove the question mark and see if anyone complains (or even notices!).
1 to 8 of 8