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.
A fluke has put some content at generator, but that is a duplicate that won't last. What I want to ask is, should generator redirect to (or just have the content of) generator: disambiguation or separator? (Or generators and relations, but I don't think so.)
When I discovered the Spam on generator, I was surprised to find that the spammer had created the page. There was a redirect for ’generator’ to another page (I forget what). Is this that Google problem recurring in a different way? I did not want to empty the page, it might have been created from a non-active link. I copied across the disambiguation stuff to replace the spam and flagged it up for handling. I still do not understand how someone could create generator as I thought it had existed or had redirects etc. Any ideas?
As to the duplicate it should be sent to where ever such stuff gets sent!
I think “generator” should redirect to separator.
We have to think about what people are likely to link. Will they say things like ‘Let be a generator of the free group on three letters.’? Or will they only (or almost only) say ‘Let be a generator of the category .’? (Not that let statements are the only relevant context.)
We have to think about what people are likely to link.
I would agree with Mike that this is not the way to go. We can’t know what people are likely to intend if there are two standard meanings. Even if one is used only, say, 30 per cent of the time and the other 70, a disambiguation page would still be better.
We can’t know what people are likely to intend if there are two standard meanings. Even if one is used only, say, 30 per cent of the time and the other 70, a disambiguation page would still be better.
That is not how we treat many other words. The nLab has a focus, and our choice of organization reflects this. Compare, for example, domain (taken from category theory, not relation theory or domain theory), source (besides the meaning in mathematical physics, there are two meanings within category theory itself, and we use the more common one), field (math vs physics), and many others.
The nLab has a focus
I wouldn’t think so. The nLab has a specific point of view, but does not exclude anything.
On the contrary, I keep thinking that we need to disambiguate much more. Good that you mention source: just recently I was writing on holography where it is standard to say things like
fields map to sources
I have then created source field and wrote code like
[[source field|source]]
but really I think the page source should be a disambiguation page.
Having a focus doesn't mean having exclusionary limits. It just means having a gradation between centre and periphery.
Not sure what this implies. I think the point is just that a reader who looks for some keyword should be able to find all the different meanings of that keyword, not just one. That’s all.
I'm not sure what that means either. We don't have readers looking for keywords; that's not how the nLab (or any wiki, really) works. We have writers linking to pages, and then readers following those links. So we want the links to go to the right place, as much as possible. If there's a meaning of the word that is likely to be the main meaning on this wiki, then the link should go there most of the time.
If you mean that readers should be able to find the right place if a link goes to the wrong place, then I agree. Mostly we've done this with a note near the top of the page. At separator, this is done is the section Caution on terminology; another example is at field, which has a special disambiguation block at the top of the page. We don't always have a consistent place, but it's always near the top.
As much as possible, we'd like the reader to get where they want to go in one click, and we'd like the writers to be able to make the most natural link immediately. So if a link ‘generator’ will usually be intended to link to separator (which I suspect but am not sure of), then it should redirect there; and if it will usually be intended to link to generators and relations (which I highly doubt), then it should redirect there. On the other hand, if we can't expect either of these to be usual, then generator should be a disambiguation page after all.
That's what I was trying to get opinions on with this thread; will a link to generator usually mean separator or not? Instead we have a discussion on how disambiguation should work … which maybe we needed to have.
I do not think there is often much to choose between a block at the top of an entry saying ’This entry is about blah in the sense of blah theory. For blah in the sense of yummy theory see …’ and the alternative of having a special disambiguation page. The choice is one of style rather than substance. If there are several terms and pages which could link to a given term a single disamb. page would be better, but when there is just a pair of such terms then the block will work just as well.
Someone who has background in combinatorial group theory rather than in pure category theory will think of generator in the ‘… and relations’ sense, but someone who has earlier met and used the category theoretic sense may need the latter sense as a a link. We cannot decide for them in advance, so a mix of styles seems perfectly fine to me. Sometimes a disambig. page may be better if the two uses, although distinct, are distantly related as that page can then be used to indicate something about that relationship. This is exactly what is done at separator.
Hi Toby,
okay, sure, so I guess the discussion is then about whether to have a stand-alone disambiguation page or rather have a disambiguation prominently on the page that already describes one of the meanings.
I have no disagreement with that (either way)!
Speaking of which, I just added a disambiguation-sentence to the top of the entry source.
I would be equally okay with generator redirecting to separator (although I’m on record as preferring the former terminology) if the latter had a hatnote mentioning generators and relations. If we did that, though, then would there be any point of the disambiguation page existing? No one is going to intentionally link to it, and if it has a name like “generator: disambiguation” then no one is going to accidentally link to it either.
Yes, flexibility, as Tim says.
I think (new argument warning!) that we need a disambiguation page at generator since it keeps being recreated. So that is what we have now, and the rest is cleaned up.
1 to 16 of 16