Knowledge

Talk:Small set

Source 📝

691:(and vice versa), when typically, the two subjects are indistinguishable. There's no reason to create an extra article, with cyclic links, unnecessary redundancy - so why create one? Because it's apparently " solution" that "fix" the article, and you happen to like it. Of course, now we'll have to maintain the two articles separately - if there is a new "small set," we'll have to add it to both lists, and synchronize these lists independently, and make every change to them twice. Now, if you wanted to cut all exposition from the article, you should have done that, instead of reverting 580:
just as much one as the other. Because of that, your insistence that each link match the subject of the page is IRRELEVANT because the subject of the page is BOTH. That means we can link to EITHER, depending on context, with perhaps a preference for "small set" whenever that term is appropriate. However, in no case would it be necessary to have a large and small set of the same subject, thus your concerns about redirect-link policy are totally irrelevant too - no one is going to write
22: 71: 53: 669:
OK, I'll get the ball rolling. Disambig pages are for navigation only, not for exposition. The exposition involved in saying a large set is one that's not small is not much, but eliminating it is still an improvement. Yes, there's some redundancy involved in my solution, but it's harmless redundancy.
584:
article on the exact same thing, titled "small set (ramsey theory)" or "large set (combinatorics)" unless there separate meanings (in which case, they will get their own entires on this page anyway). If you insist that you are trying to be rational or logical, I'd hope by now you would get the point:
579:
direct opposites, and would inevitably be in the same article together, and having disambiguations for each would require excessive redundancy. As such, large and small set are the same page, and should remain this way. This page may be called "small set" in the title, but the subject of the page is
347:
makes it clear that while one shouldn't simply remove all links to redirects, it provides guidelines for when linking to such content even makes sense: when there is a "possible future article" (not possible), when it consolidates information (does not), or when it is appropriate (is not - it's the
397:
was only created to facilitate article redirecting! Talk about absurdity. If you want to keep things messed up, fine. It's my policy to let crazy people do crazy things if they want - I've made my case clear, if you still want to introduce misleading and inappropriate terminology into this page to
398:
satisfy your adherence to this redirect policy, fine. It's not my job to convince you to see reason. That redirect policy is about otherwise unjustified changes to redirects. This change has other justification. But do what you will. I don't care enough to try to make my case with you any more. --
467:
I wasn't demanding your obedience, I was asking you to help keep your contribution (and mine) as productive, civil, and transparent as possible. And I know about redirect policy, it is not a redirect problem, it is a content problem. Content concerns outweigh concerns about concerns regarding
534:
the policy in question. But like I said, do whatever you want, you've repeated your points several times without wavering, I'm not here to proselytize common sense to you. If you insist on obeying rules that you've imagined apply, do whatever you want. I don't care enough to stop you.
589:, it should be that way, and we CAN link to "large set" articles just as much as "small set" ones. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing more to say on this. I've expounded it six times in half a dozen different ways - I don't have any more time to spend explaining it to you. -- 552:
as a "small set" in this context means that we (1) shouldn't use that term and (2) shouldn't link to that page - it's not the target page, in any way. The redirect there notwithstanding, since that redirect may be helpful and isn't doing any harm,
373:. I'm a set theorist, not a combinatorist, so I can't contradict you here. If you're right about that, the proper remedy might be to remove the claim there that a non-large set is called "small", and remove the link from this page altogether. 704:
make comments, instead of drawing our disagreement into this section of the talk page, which I presume is not the point of a request for comment (since they are, as far as I know, intended to get comments from uninvolved third parties).
237:
I've deleted the merge template. This is no longer an article, but a disambiguation, and we can't merge a disambig with an article. I've added the article in question to the list of items on the page though, since it seems relevant.
611:
of this page, linking to the same articles in both - this is frankly, the most absurd thing I've ever seen, all because you don't want a link to "large set" on an article that is about both large and small sets.
192:
of sets? Probably not, but that would be the kind of thing to look for) then I think this article should be broken up into its constituent parts, and there should be a disambiguation page under this title.
339:
not to link to things called "large set (specialty)". There is no rule declaring "all disambigs must link to titles that are exactly similar to the name of the disambig page" - especially when this is
352:
are just as much the topic of this page as small sets are, and it is just as appropriate to link to the relevant article then to its redirect. That's what I meant by "repair." Worst of all, I've
695:
my edits on the incorrect pretense that "small set" was the appropriate link. I established that this was wrong, and then argued against your "don't fix redirects" on the basis of content : -->
647:
always opposites, and in rarer cases, only one of the two terms is used (never both with non-opposite meanings). The article is titled "small set" but the subject of the article is (was)
303:
First of all, you misunderstand the purpose of a disambig page. It assumes that people are looking for a specific phrase. We are supposed to send them to titles are similar to that
651:
large and small sets. One of the definitions was only for large sets ("small set" not used in that context), and the question becomes whether to duplicate most of this content at
683:
So does the less redundant method of keeping both topics together. And that minor amount of exposition is certainly alot more sensible than a mysterious and confusing link to
468:
unjustified changes. The redirect policy you cited is about unjustified changes that eliminate redirects, not changes justified by content concerns or other considerations. --
489:
As I said (well, at least implied), if you want to remove the link entirely from the dab page, I have no objection. As far as I can see, that addresses all your concerns. --
160:
It was I who wrote that, and I've since checked Goldberg, and can't find the theorem. So I don't remember where I saw it. I'll try and find out the statement of the theorem.
450:
It was a general concern, not one related only to the specific article. Also note that no one is required to "obey" anyone's instructions regarding his/her talk page. --
607:
Refusing to repeat myself is not open invitation for you to do whatever you want. I'm requesting a comment because frankly, you have now created what is essentially a
322:
pages -- those indeed should be repaired except in unusual contexts (such as when the link intends the same range of meanings covered by the disambig page itself). --
566:
What what what? Make a separate "large set" dab page, if you want. This page is called "small set" and all the stuff about large sets is just flat confusing. --
726: 270:
chance. But let's assume my professional opinion doesn't count. There is still no reason not to link to "large set" because that disambig page is for
97: 315: 290:
would have to be created, and the appropriate link would have to be moved there anyway. There is no reason to link to a redirect, and we are
93: 78: 58: 343:: large set and small set. And here is an additional response, which I was writing while you were writing yours: Please note that the 393:
about small sets, it's about large sets. This is just as much the disambig for large set as it is for small set, and the article
348:
wrong term entirely). It may be policy not to cut out every link to a redirect ever, but that's not the point. The point is that
659:
in this article, where the title is "small set" and the subject is (was) both large and small sets. See discussion above. --
643:
This request is to ask whether or not we may put "small set" and "large set" together in one disambiguation page - they are
252:
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with linking to redirects. It is the best thing to do when there is any chance, even if
33: 656: 554: 523: 394: 370: 220: 545: 83: 318:. This sort of "repair" is just wrong in the overwhelming majority of cases. You may be thinking of links to 21: 411:
To be concise: The general "don't change links to redirects" rule is overridden by the fact that this is
136: 39: 700:
amount of exposition in this one. Now I'm not an expert on requests for comment, but I suggest you let
256:
slim, that the redirect will ever become an article. The performance issue is entirely negligible. --
216: 189: 380:
correct. It's correct, as the guideline page says, in some obvious cases such as misspellings. --
188:
Unless someone can find a common abstraction unifying the three parts (say, are they all about
170:
Actually it is in Goldberg, and this article now includes the theorem (due to Muntz-Szasz).
557:
is not the target article, and use of such a term is inappropriate and borderline OR. --
376:
But it's not merely not correct to "cut out every link to a redirect ever". It's almost
360:
the terminology we use, regardless of the fact that small is the "opposite" of large. --
671: 599: 567: 490: 451: 429: 381: 323: 257: 194: 548:, which clearly states that we should link to target articles. The fact that there is 720: 706: 660: 613: 590: 558: 536: 469: 420: 399: 361: 295: 239: 696:
style guidelines, and now you're citing "no exposition in disambigs," despite the
207: 204: 174: 171: 164: 161: 688: 684: 652: 586: 515: 287: 283: 279: 275: 286:. If there were a circumstance like the one you describe, then a page for 670:
The point is to get users where they want to go. This gets them there. --
70: 52: 215:
Yes, good job with splitting. I also wondered about it a while ago.
316:
Knowledge:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken
709: 674: 663: 616: 602: 593: 570: 561: 539: 493: 472: 454: 432: 423: 402: 384: 364: 326: 298: 260: 242: 224: 210: 197: 389:
Almost never and never are not the same thing. That article is
369:
Well, the last point should be brought up at the talk page for
344: 15: 356:
seen a paper that called a non-large set "small" - it's just
146:
A theorem by Someone gives an equivalent condition on a set
184:
This page looks like it should be three separate articles
152:
Note--it's in Goldberg's (is that his name) silver book
415:
and that the target article in question is essentially
88: 96:, where you can join the project or contribute to the 314:
supposed to "repair" links to redirects. Please see
335:the disambig article on large sets. Thus there is 86:pages on Knowledge. If you wish to help, you can 76:This disambiguation page is within the scope of 598:Fine, go away then, and I'll fix it myself. -- 526:, that link should be there, and it should be 8: 413:not an disambig exclusively about small sets 82:, an attempt to structure and organize all 19: 47: 331:EXACTLY! You've hit it on the nose. This 92:attached to this talk page, or visit the 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 294:to always repair links to redirects. -- 49: 7: 106:Knowledge:WikiProject Disambiguation 109:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation 38:It is of interest to the following 575:No, you don't get it. The two are 14: 266:And I can tell you that there is 727:WikiProject Disambiguation pages 69: 51: 20: 310:More importantly -- no, we are 1: 514:No, it doesn't. If I look up 225:22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 211:22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 198:19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 546:the far more relevant policy 274:. It is not exclusively the 710:00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 675:23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 664:23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 617:23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 603:21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 594:21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 571:19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 562:17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 540:16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 494:08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 473:07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 455:07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 433:07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 424:07:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 403:07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 385:07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 365:07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 327:07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 299:07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 261:06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 743: 530:. Redirect-link policy is 243:16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 144:This paragraph needs work: 79:WikiProject Disambiguation 657:Large set (Ramsey theory) 555:small set (Ramsey theory) 524:large set (Ramsey theory) 395:Small set (Ramsey theory) 371:large set (Ramsey theory) 167:17:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) 139:09:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) 131:Equivalent to being small 64: 46: 177:19:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) 154:Methods of Real Analysis 112:Disambiguation articles 655:or to allow a link to 585:This IS the page for 417:only about large sets 278:article, it is both 248:linking to redirects 639:Request for Comment 307:, not that concept. 30:disambiguation page 345:appropriate policy 34:content assessment 687:at the bottom of 128: 127: 124: 123: 120: 119: 734: 544:And please note 528:worded correctly 137:Charles Matthews 114: 113: 110: 107: 104: 91: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 25: 24: 16: 742: 741: 737: 736: 735: 733: 732: 731: 717: 716: 641: 250: 235: 217:Oleg Alexandrov 186: 150:to being small: 133: 111: 108: 105: 102: 101: 87: 12: 11: 5: 740: 738: 730: 729: 719: 718: 715: 714: 713: 712: 678: 677: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 542: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 460: 459: 458: 457: 444: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 374: 308: 249: 246: 234: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 185: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 132: 129: 126: 125: 122: 121: 118: 117: 115: 103:Disambiguation 84:disambiguation 74: 62: 61: 59:Disambiguation 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 739: 728: 725: 724: 722: 711: 708: 703: 699: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 673: 668: 667: 666: 665: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 638: 618: 615: 610: 606: 605: 604: 601: 597: 596: 595: 592: 588: 583: 578: 577:almost always 574: 573: 572: 569: 565: 564: 563: 560: 556: 551: 550:no such thing 547: 543: 541: 538: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 495: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 474: 471: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 456: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 434: 431: 428:See above. -- 427: 426: 425: 422: 418: 414: 410: 404: 401: 396: 392: 388: 387: 386: 383: 379: 375: 372: 368: 367: 366: 363: 359: 355: 351: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 329: 328: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 306: 302: 301: 300: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 264: 263: 262: 259: 255: 247: 245: 244: 241: 232: 226: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 209: 205: 202: 201: 200: 199: 196: 191: 183: 176: 172: 169: 168: 166: 162: 159: 158: 157: 155: 151: 147: 145: 140: 138: 130: 116: 99: 95: 90: 89:edit the page 85: 81: 80: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 23: 18: 17: 701: 697: 692: 648: 644: 642: 608: 581: 576: 549: 531: 527: 522:. If I want 519: 443: 416: 412: 390: 377: 357: 353: 349: 341:two articles 340: 336: 332: 319: 311: 304: 291: 271: 267: 253: 251: 236: 187: 153: 149: 143: 142: 141: 134: 94:project page 77: 40:WikiProjects 29: 135:From page. 698:very minor 350:large sets 98:discussion 689:large set 685:small set 672:Trovatore 653:large set 609:duplicate 600:Trovatore 587:large set 568:Trovatore 520:this page 516:large set 491:Trovatore 452:Trovatore 430:Trovatore 382:Trovatore 337:no reason 324:Trovatore 288:large set 284:small set 280:large set 276:small set 258:Trovatore 254:extremely 233:Merge to? 195:Trovatore 721:Category 707:Cheeser1 661:Cheeser1 614:Cheeser1 591:Cheeser1 559:Cheeser1 537:Cheeser1 518:, I get 470:Cheeser1 421:Cheeser1 400:Cheeser1 362:Cheeser1 320:disambig 296:Cheeser1 292:supposed 240:Cheeser1 582:another 702:others 645:almost 305:phrase 208:msh210 190:ideals 175:msh210 165:msh210 36:scale. 378:never 354:never 203:Done. 28:This 693:only 649:both 419:. -- 282:and 272:both 268:zero 221:talk 532:not 391:not 358:not 312:not 723:: 705:-- 612:-- 535:-- 333:is 238:-- 223:) 193:-- 156:. 219:( 206:— 173:— 163:— 148:S 100:. 42::

Index


content assessment
WikiProjects
WikiProject icon
Disambiguation
WikiProject icon
WikiProject Disambiguation
disambiguation
edit the page
project page
discussion
Charles Matthews

msh210

msh210
ideals
Trovatore
19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

msh210
22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov
talk
22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Cheeser1
16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Trovatore
06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
small set

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.