Talk:Set Union Preserves Subsets/Corollary

Rename
I renamed this because I'm about to add a second proof that doesn't depend on Set Union Preserves Subsets, and a proof of that that relies on this. I know you must be shocked to hear there was a reason. --Dfeuer (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Right now it's back the way it's supposed to be.


 * There's a reason it's done like this. I can't be bothered to explain. --prime mover (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We know you wanted to add a proof, and that's a good incentive. Your approach of facilitating that in the page structure was flawed. This gave rise to confusion and an edit war. I can understand both of your viewpoints. As the relative newcomer I think Dfeuer would do best to ask and learn, rather than extrapolate.


 * Why not: "Hey guys, I have a new proof of X which uses a new proof of X/Corollary. This makes the page structure awkward. Are there accepted guidelines and/or ideas how to go about this?" You'd be surprised at the responses, even from your "arch enemy" PM. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not currently able to respond without excessive sarcasm, but if someone can explain in this *specific* context how to decide if something is a theorem, a lemma, or a corollary, when in fact it is all of the above, please go ahead. --Dfeuer (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Most minimal sarcasm: rename Set Union Preserves Subsets to Constructive Dilemma/Corollary. Because, you know, it is one. --Dfeuer (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rule of thumb: Leave the (expletive) alone unless it's actually broken. The fact that you don't like something does not mean it's wrong. --prime mover (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)