added reference to:

- Jacob Lurie, Rem. 1.2.5.9 in
*Higher Topos Theory*, Annals of Mathematics Studies**170**, Princeton University Press (2009) [pup:8957, pdf]

With that, the ratio of references in the entry that agree with your notation over those who agree with the notion you deleted is zero.

(In other words: At least make some constructive edit, like adding a reference.)

]]>Use a more standard notation for the coslice category.

Mark John Hopkins

]]>Added the example of the category of pointed modules being the coslice category under the additive group of the ground ring

Joachim Joszef

]]>I have expanded the example on pointed objects (here)

]]>Sure, I have adjusted the wording.

But the exposition of this whole proposition leave much room for improvement. You should feel invited to edit it or re-write it from scratch.

]]>This formulation is really misleading. It is not difficult to construct examples of categories without limits in which every coslice does have a limit, e.g. finite sets with surjections.

It would be proper, in my opinion, to remove it, leaving only the "precisely"-part, or reformulate:

Proposition 3.1. If limits exist in the underlying category then the same is true for every under category and these limits coincide.

Rostislav Matveev ]]>

copied over, from *overcategory*, statement and proof of computing limits in undercategories