Template talk:AoC

It might be a good idea to, when possible, refer to use of ACC and or ADC explicitly, instead of invoking full AC. --Lord_Farin 12:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree. What effect would that have on this template? --abcxyz 13:23, 29 March 2012 (EDT)


 * Good call. We'd probably write a new one for each. My knowledge of each is inadequate to do justice to a description of them, but I would suggest they follow the approximate style and content of the existing template.
 * And I still prefer "AoC" to "AC", mainly because the latter has too many other connotations, "alternating current" and its street interpretation being chief. --prime mover 15:54, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Multiple ways
Would it be possible to expand this template to take into account the fact that some theorems could possibly use AoC in more than one way? I don't know if there are theorems that do so, but I would imagine there probably are. --Dfeuer (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that would be entirely possible. The Template:BookReference does such a thing with the number of authors. This template will be amended as the need arises. --Lord_Farin (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proof but not Theorem
Should I / how should I invoke this template if the proof invokes an equivalent to AoC, but the theorem itself can be proved without AoC? --GFauxPas (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2018 (EDT)


 * If the proof you use requires AoC, then invoke the AoC template, but on the proof page not the theorem page, and make sure its invocation is outside the onlyinclude tags. On a proof page which does *not* invoke AoC, don't invoke it.