# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 30th 2012
• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorZhen Lin
• CommentTimeOct 30th 2012

I added a remark connecting these to accessible categories.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 30th 2012
• (edited Oct 30th 2012)

Thanks!

(editorial comment: I have turned your Remark-section into a Properties-section and gave the statement a Proposition-environment. Also copied a counterpart to the entry accessible category.)

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorThomas Holder
• CommentTimeOct 7th 2020

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorThomas Holder
• CommentTimeOct 8th 2020

1. This proposition is wrong.

Anonymous

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 7th 2020
• (edited Dec 7th 2020)

Just to say that, after discussion with Thomas, I have contacted Olivia Caramello on the issue of the anonymous edit announced in #6 above, which bluntly removed (in rev 7) Thomas’s Prop. 4.2.

Olivia kindly responded to say that she thinks the Proposition 4.2 in rev 6 was actually correct, as is its proof in the Sandbox 2108.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTimeDec 7th 2020
• (edited Dec 7th 2020)

For edits by new participants it would be very helpful to include a link to the corresponding nForum thread from the edit box, and also from the bottom list of links for each article.

This will increase the awareness about the nForum among new contributors.

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 8th 2020

Yes, we might want to highlight this feature request to Richard.

But in the present case I am growing the suspicion that #6 was not so much a “new participant” but a troll trying to check out what we let pass. I hope Thomas will revert the entry soon.

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorThomas Holder
• CommentTimeDec 8th 2020
• (edited Dec 8th 2020)

Troll or not, the anonymous took her/his aim rather well:

Although the proposition s/he removed was indeed correct (and I therefore restored it with the proof added), the proposition right in front of it was not since it stated that the finite accessibility of $\mathbb{T}\text{-}Mod(Set)$ would imply that $\mathbb{T}$ be of presheaf type. Hence I replaced that proposition by some classical characterizations recalled at the beginning of Tibor Beke’s paper.

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 8th 2020

Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei.

2. For edits by new participants it would be very helpful to include a link to the corresponding nForum thread from the edit box

There is already such a link! If you’d prefer to emphasise it more in some way, let me know a concrete suggestion, and we can try it out.

and also from the bottom list of links for each article.

It is of course already linked to at ’Discuss this page’ in the menu at the top. We can add it at the bottom as well if you prefer, and/or reword the top menu item to mention the nForum explicitly.

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTimeDec 8th 2020

Re #12: Are you referring to the paragraph that says:

Concerning the menu at the top, it currently says:

Of these five links, four are generic and only one refers to the page itself. That’s why I never noticed this link, I guess.

It obviously belongs with the other links at the bottom, which pertain to a specific article.

Edit | Back in time (52 revisions) | See changes | History | Cite | Print | TeX | Source

I was always confused by “Back in time” and “See changes”. I would suggest to rename them to “Previous revision” and “Compare to the previous revision”, since this is what they do. Otherwise, it is unclear which of “Back in time” and “History” actually shows the list of revisions.

Also, the counter (52 revisions) could be moved after “History”, since it is more relevant there.

My apologies, I was mis-remembering! I 100% agree that this should link to the actual discussion thread, and have now made this change.

I have also implemented all of the menu changes that you suggested. I have retained ’Discuss this page’ in the top menu though, in addition to adding it to the bottom menu, since I don’t think it really matters that it is specific rather than generic like the other items, and it may be that some people notice it more/that it is more convenient for some people, at the top.

The code changes can be viewed at github.

• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
• CommentTimeDec 16th 2020

Thanks a lot, l really like how it looks now!

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorThomas Holder
• CommentTimeJun 1st 2021

Strenghtened prop.4.2. a little.