nForum - Discussion Feed (Matters of Style) Thu, 01 Jun 2023 20:18:16 +0000 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.10 & Feed Publisher Urs comments on "Matters of Style" (513) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=513#Comment_513 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=513#Comment_513 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:21:01 +0000 Urs

Yes, we should mark original research, in order to warn the reader but mainly in order to encourage the reader -- and us -- to participate in research activity on the nLab in an organized way; meaning: in a way that doesn't interfere but cross-fertilizes with the expository parts of the Lab.

At the entry twisted cohomology I added a standout box to indicate original research.

I think we should have more of that kind.

]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "Matters of Style" (511) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=511#Comment_511 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=511#Comment_511 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:52:23 +0000 Andrew Stacey

I had in mind something a little more eye-catching. Something maybe 3 or 4 times the size of a standard character. As well as being more obvious, it's size would make it clear that it's something "meta" and not intended as part of the page. I think that there are other situations where such icons are warranted, marking "original research" is another.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (510) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=510#Comment_510 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=510#Comment_510 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:54:51 +0000 TobyBartels

I think if an edit is there for 20 minutes or so, it will show up in the history

It's 30 minutes.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (508) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=508#Comment_508 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=508#Comment_508 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:43:40 +0000 TobyBartels

Yes, I like explanations much better than rules!

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (507) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=507#Comment_507 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=507#Comment_507 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:28:06 +0000 Eric Check out the bottom of

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/path+infinity-groupoid

I used a pair of scissors :) ]]>
Urs comments on "Matters of Style" (506) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=506#Comment_506 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=506#Comment_506 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:16:52 +0000 Urs

I like the wheel, not the knight.

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (505) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=505#Comment_505 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=505#Comment_505 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:44:32 +0000 Eric My favorite contenders for lab elf symbols are

White Night
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2658/index.htm

Wheel of Dharma
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2638/index.htm

Playing in the Sandbox (at the bottom of the page)

:)

PS: Here is a great list of unicode symbols that might be generally useful

http://www.unicode.org/charts/symbols.html ]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (504) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=504#Comment_504 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=504#Comment_504 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:19:29 +0000 Eric

Of course we have lab elves :)

I like the idea of a special character rather than a page name for the links to Notes on Formatting. If it is unicode, we can create a redirect for it.

We need a (unicode) symbol for the lab elves :)

]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "Matters of Style" (500) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=500#Comment_500 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=500#Comment_500 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:57:17 +0000 Andrew Stacey

I like the idea of explanations for potentially minor formatting issues. It's much better than a guidelines page for something that's so much a matter of taste.

However, there is a slight irony in the wording, given who wrote it! All along it refers to a mysterious "we" who go round (presumably at night) cleaning up the n-lab. Does the n-lab now have "house elves"? (Or should these be "lab elves"?).

Two suggestions. Somewhere prominent, there should be a note saying that if you see a minor formatting change of something you wrote then you should scroll back through the history to see if someone left a comment on why it was done, otherwise people new to wikis might not be in the habit of going back through revisions and so would never spot the note or link. I'd put this in the FAQ as it seems like the most likely place someone would go to find out about such matters.

Secondly, how about an obvious icon as the link rather than the page name. That would make it visually clear that this is something a bit different to an ordinary link on the page. Under the influence of "Eats, shoots and leaves", I would go for a big "," [comma].

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (499) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=499#Comment_499 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=499#Comment_499 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:23:08 +0000 Eric

I have an idea. I might create a page Note on formatting (or something) with a few comments about formatting changes I/we generally make. Anyone is welcome to modify it. When I make a format change to a page, I will provide a link to this page. The link will be there only temporarily. The page itself will keep track of pages pointing to it and I will periodically go back around and delete the links to the note. This will produce a few spurious revisions, but in the scheme of things, I don't think that is a big deal. This could also be a place to explain specific examples of format changes that are made. In this way, when an author sees that his/her content has been changed and sees a link to Note on formatting, in principle, they can go there to see why the format was changed and can either agree and leave the change or disagree and undo the change, but at least they will know "why".

The Note on formatting is not a set of rules, but a set of explanations.

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (498) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=498#Comment_498 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=498#Comment_498 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:44:23 +0000 Eric

Sounds good to me too.

Sometimes I will leave a note in a query box indicating that I will remove the query box soon. I'm not sure if that is the right thing to do, but I think if an edit is there for 20 minutes or so, it will show up in the history. Once I'm sure the note will appear in the history, I remove the note. That way, if someone traces back through revisions, they will see the note.

I think it is a good idea to leave little query notes explaining a change, especially a format change, so the author will have the option to disagree or to agree and possibly change their style.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (497) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=497#Comment_497 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=497#Comment_497 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:57:51 +0000 TobyBartels

I agree with all that Urs has said.

Perhaps I should have opened a query box at Cauchy complete category insted of (or in addition to) explaining on latest changes? Yes, I think that I should have!

]]>
Urs comments on "Matters of Style" (496) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=496#Comment_496 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=496#Comment_496 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:32:39 +0000 Urs

I see a general issue becoming relevant, independent of whether we are talking style or content or otherwise:

namely, in general it may happen that new changes made to old material might not appear entirely as an improvement to the former contributors, one way or other.

I can't see how we can find a general rule to deal with such issues. I think we have to fight it out -- of course: discuss it -- on a case by case basis.

Everybody must know that nothing he or she enters into the nLab is guaranteed to remain there permanently unchanged.

On the other hand, everybody should get the impression that everybody else is trying their best to make changes only where they actually lead to an improvement of sorts.

This will be a group process. I wouldn't know how to organize or formalize it. If we run into serious conflicts on how an entry should look like, we need to open a query box there and have a discussion until some kind of compromise is reached.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (495) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=495#Comment_495 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=495#Comment_495 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:53:54 +0000 TobyBartels

(Jacques has now seen zero object. It turns out that the cache bug upon removing a redirect would be very difficult to fix. Fortunately one can clear it by hand by editing the page.)

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (493) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=493#Comment_493 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=493#Comment_493 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:14:45 +0000 Eric

No worries. That again is no biggie.

In my defense, it was not bar, it was Cauchy bar :)

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (492) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=492#Comment_492 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=492#Comment_492 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:48:14 +0000 TobyBartels

(PS: The redirect cache bug still exists and may be seen at zero object. I suggest that nobody edit that page until Jacques has a chance to verify it.)

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (491) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=491#Comment_491 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=491#Comment_491 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:37:14 +0000 TobyBartels

The end result is we have broken plural links for Cauchy colimits

Where are there links to Cauchy colimits? I checked and didn't find any; I just checked again and didn't find any. I did leave some wanted links to Cauchy colimit, which I think is what they should be.

In any case, my reversal of that particular redirect was not for any style reason. I explained it at latest changes; you must have missed that. (Incidentally, Google has no hits for "Cauchy colimit" except on the Lab. Perhaps the original writer meant to say ‘absolute colimit’? It might be reasonable to redirect that to Cauchy complete category, at least temporarily.)

If you want a meta-style rule out of this, then it would be that just because somebody writes bar somewhere doesn't mean that !redirects bar belongs at foo; one must read foo to see if that's appropriate. However, I don't think that I would call that a matter of style at all. Still, perhaps that was what I was planning to put as (3), since I did revert you on that in this case.

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (490) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=490#Comment_490 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=490#Comment_490 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:48:02 +0000 Eric

No worries. It sounded like you had more in mind than "]]s" vs "s]]" wrt meta-rules. I thought there was more than that.

Oh! I remember. On additive functor, it was either you or Mike that had a link Cauchy colimits. Since I came across several pages with wanted links for Cauchy colimit AND since someone already thought Cauchy complete category was a good place to land after clicking Cauchy colimit, I added redirects

!redirects Cauchy colimit !redirects Cauchy colimits

to Cauchy complete category. I then went around and did my usual plural Cauchy colimits to Cauchy colimits cleanup routine. Then you (I think) deleted my redirects. This broke all my plural links.

I even used that as the example on redirects hoping someone would remove the redirects from Cauchy complete category and create a page Cauchy colimit. However, you went ahead and removed the redirects (breaking all my plural links), but didn't create Cauchy colimit. Then you deleted any reference to this example from redirect in place of your own example.

The end result is we have broken plural links for Cauchy colimits with no evidence of the work I did. Hopefully, someone creates that page and we can add the plural redirects to fix the links (rather than changing to Caucy colimits).

It's not a huge deal, but when work is undone, I wish there were some explanation given to help avoid wasted effort in the future.

PS: I really don't mind my work being undone if it improves the quality of the nLab, but my only request is that some remark is left somewhere, preferably an MoS giving the reason.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (489) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=489#Comment_489 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=489#Comment_489 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:45:22 +0000 TobyBartels
  1. For example, Zoran prefers foos to foos, so if you change foos to foos and nothing else, then I might change it back, particularly if I know that Zoran wrote it. (Although you are probably not changing it anymore if you think that Zoran wrote it.) Do you want to record on a MoS page those stylistic differences that some people prefer so that everybody knows that they're not mistakes?

I just told you my meta-rules, which are simply my personal rules for reverting those few edits of yours that I've reverted. It's fine with me if you want to record them somewhere. But there's nothing in them that states that people ought to write things in some particular way, which is what a Manual of Style means to me. (Except for the naming conventions, which are written down already.)

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (488) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=488#Comment_488 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=488#Comment_488 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:38:45 +0000 Eric
  1. If there is a preferred style (even if a meta style), then it should go on the "Matters of Style" page so that I know about it and do not waste my time. What is this preferred style you refer to?
  2. I've modified the way I do that too, so it should not be an issue going forward.

If there are meta-rules, these meta-rules should be enunciated so that everyone knows about them and not just a select few. The MoS does not need to be set in stone (as I've said), but should represent a set of guidelines to help avoid unintentional gendarmes. You obviously have some meta-rules in mind and I'd like to know about them so I do not waste my time making changes that will only be undone. That is what I mean by an MoS.

]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (487) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=487#Comment_487 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=487#Comment_487 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:49:49 +0000 TobyBartels

I've undone a few of Eric's style edits on the basis of these three rules:

  1. If the change is purely stylistic and changes things to one style from another style that others prefer, then I might change it back. (This it to defend from the gendarmes, so to speak.)
  2. If the change creates a link to a nonexistent page whose name violates the naming conventions, then I fix that. (I've modified how I do this, following my deal with Eric above.)
  3. … dang, now I can't remember what the other one is, maybe there isn't one …

Relative to a MoS, these are more meta-rules than rules. The naming conventions have rules, and these are in a sense ‘incorporated by reference’ in (2), but the place to write those down is in a page on naming conventions. And my meta-rule (1) for reversion is to enforce the idea that there are no (non-meta) rules to enforce! (The other one was also meta, I think; I'll try to remember what it was.)

So basically, my attitude is that there is no Manual of Style (although there are Naming Conventions). Maybe that should be written down somewhere!

]]>
Eric comments on "Matters of Style" (485) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=485#Comment_485 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=485#Comment_485 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:58:13 +0000 Eric

Hi Zoran,

Thanks for your comments. Having redirects definitely helps with a lot of issues, but trying to retroactively fix things that would have otherwise naturally evolved if redirects had been around since the beginning is a painful process. For example, when you look at a page and see a bunch of links that look like pages, you might be inclined to continue writing links to additional pages to keep things "homogeneous". But the reason things originally appeared as pages was not out of preference, but due to us not having redirects in the beginning. I'm hoping that if I change enough links to pages, then when you look around, the "homogeneous" thing would be to write additional pages. We're not there yet, but getting there.

I'm REALLY happy to see you start to take advantage of redirects. If you add content while taking advantage of redirects from the beginning there will be no reason for me or anyone else to follow behind you making minor changes, creating additional revisions, etc. You're feedback is very valuable. Thanks!

Now I just need to get Urs on board. I still spend a lot of time following behind him. But I'd rather, and this applies to you as well, see people add content freely without worrying too much about formatting and let others (if they care to) follow behind and clean things up.

On the topic of this thread, I actually do continue to think we need a "Matters of Style" page and I would argue that we already do have a de facto MoS that isn't written down yet. Toby, for example, and me to a certain extent are already acting as "moderators of style". I admit that I am frustrated seeing a format change I make changed BACK. From now on, if anyone changes a formatting change that I make, I would like that person to point to the relevant section of the MoS so that I will know WHY my formatting was undone.

I suggest that any format change (and that goes obviously for me as well) that is made should be justified by referring to a relevant section of the MoS. My time is valuable and to see my format changes undone makes me feel as though I wasted time. To minimize the chance that I waste my time, I'd like to see some rules.

Like I said, there are rules already (or else my format changes would not be undone!) so we should write them down.

]]>
zskoda comments on "Matters of Style" (483) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=483#Comment_483 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=483#Comment_483 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:44:15 +0000 zskoda Dear all,

you do not need to make exceptions for me as for apples vs apples style. I was just institing that if the only reason for somebody's intervention in page I write, and creation of new version and so on is such a minor peculiarity of style (while not incorrect) then I find it like having a gandarme after me, and stop enjoying doing the thoughts of style and creation. But if somebody is making larger changes, like adding new material and so on, then that person will like to enjoy same freedom of creation, and will adjust the whole bulk to her/his own taste. At least I follow that. If I see one minor matter of sloppy style, like seeimingly incompatible reference formats, I do not touch the page. But when I add a new reference myself and see 5 others above in incompatible styles than I try to homogenize the whole column. You may recall that I insisted some time ago on title quasicompact rather than quasicompactness or quasicompact object or quasicompact morphism against the rule that whenever possible the page names be noun phrases. One of the reasons is that quasicompactness is almost never used word, theoretically central is qc morphism, but for nlab people attention will be probably qc object which can be also compared to compact object. So somehow I feel with some background in algebraic geometry that the page name was better than though scientifically quasicompact morphism is the best choice (for nonnlab community) and it could serve for all now with redirect from qc object -- redirects we did not have at the time.

Maybe I am thinking here too complicated way but I hope I conveyed my point of view.
P.S. I created some plural redirects in recent days though. ]]>
TobyBartels comments on "Matters of Style" (471) https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=471#Comment_471 https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/41/?Focus=471#Comment_471 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:44:51 +0000 TobyBartels

Just out of interest, is your remark in response to […]

I found my latest download of the Markup export, unzipped it, and ran your grep script on it. Yes, one might extract just the links and run sort -u (no need for uniq separately ^_^), but I'm not sure that this is really what we want. Each individual pipe link is something that we might want to change by editing some page.

Incidentally, I don't think that anybody ever wrote categorys; that's always been categories. (On Wikipedia, I would sometimes write categories, categorial, etc and create a redirect at categori, but that's borderline for MediaWiki and not wise here, I think.)

]]>
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/search/?PostBackAction=Search&Type=Comments&Page=1&Feed=RSS2&DiscussionID=41&FeedTitle=Discussion+Feed+%28Matters+of+Style%29
nforum.ncatlab.org
CC-MAIN-2023-23
31522
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:HBH4NJKYXCYQBYKFL3XDZ36P5PUUOYQO
<urn:uuid:37378078-0fac-4775-8503-417b5fe1264a>
2023-06-01T20:18:16Z
128.2.25.48
application/rss+xml
sha1:54ZDXGR5YSRQSHNO6FB4AX7T4IQSP7J2
<urn:uuid:aad56448-851b-4877-8906-3983a7c49efc>
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/search/?PostBackAction=Search&Type=Comments&Page=1&Feed=RSS2&DiscussionID=41&FeedTitle=Discussion+Feed+%28Matters+of+Style%29
response
<urn:uuid:430e6810-e094-48e2-ac98-100d6bee8d7d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-52
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/