Definition talk:Neighborhood (Topology)

The definitions for neighborhood in the contexts of topology and real / complex analysis are basically the same: the latter being an instantiation of the former.

In order to disambiguate between this and the definitions in graph theory, the former was originally bracket-qualified as being "Neighborhood (Analysis)", and the high-level "topology" version was considered as an instance of the broadest category "analysis".

I was told off for that, and informed that considering topology as a branch of analysis (which I had previously taken for granted as being) was wrong. So the plan then is to rename this entity "Neighborhood (Topology)" and have everything a transcluded subpage of that. But this is only partly done, and there are double redirects flying around, and the job needs to be finished.

However, this would mean that (in order to retain a consistent page structure) the real and complex analysis versions would then need to be (transcluded) subpages of the "topology" version, tus naming them something like "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis/Real Analysis" and mut.mut. for complex, which may confuse the users who have approached analysis but not topology.

Thus I open the debate again as to exactly how to approach this issue. The two options I envisage are:


 * 1) Use "Neighborhood (Analysis)" as the master page and have subpages "Neighborhood (Analysis)/Topology", "Neighborhood (Analysis)/Topology/Metric Space", "Neighborhood (Analysis)/Real Analysis" and "Neighborhood (Analysis)/Complex Analysis" - the names of the last two may be "Real Number Line" and "Complex Space" if you like.
 * 2) Use "Neighborhood (Topology)" as the master page and have subpages "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis", "Neighborhood (Topology)/Metric Space", "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis/Real Analysis" and "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis/Complex Analysis". Then "Neighborhood (Analysis) would be a redirect to "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis", "Neighborhood (Real Analysis)" a redirect to "Neighborhood (Topology)/Analysis/Real Analysis" and so on.

My preference, now I've thought about it, is the second of these, but I'm not committed either way yet: the second requires more work, and has the problem mentioned of possibly confusing the non-topologically-literate readers, but is more in eeping with the structural philosophy of the site. The first is where we came from, which caused some contributors to blench when presented with the blasphemy of considering topology a branch of analysis.

Ready, aim: fire! --prime mover (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Neighborhood (Topology) should be on top, so #2. --Dfeuer (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Aha yes, I see now, you started a refactoring job mid feb. That explains the large number of double redirects.


 * Is there a discussion page somewhere that this point was initially raised? I can't immediately find one. Or is it something you just went ahead and did? --prime mover (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My most vaguest recollection is that I did it, you undid it, and then you redid it. I have to go to sleep two hours ago. Good night. -Dfeuer (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There was some page. I'll try to locate it in a moment.


 * It seems the page exists only in my memory. Perhaps this battle was fought in the edit summary texts only. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For now, let me put in that it is in some cases admissible to transclude a page that is not a subpage. I think it could be argued that this holds for Neighborhood (Analysis), since people aren't a priori expected to also want to read up on the Topology version, and the two are stand-alone mostly. I think having an invocation of the "about" template on Nbd (Analysis) will cater for the desire to link to Nbd (Topology). This occurs to me as the option with the least confusion for the casual reader. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "it is in some cases admissible to transclude a page that is not a subpage" - yes, it may be appropriate here, we'll see. --prime mover (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)