Talk:Closure is Closed

Seems like a half-finished job of refactoring has been attempted here. Anyone care to explain what the intention behind the page naming convention used here is? --prime mover (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've worked it out. This page can in theory be just renamed to "Closure is Closed" and it will then be the most general instance of its type. The original page with that name has been renamed to "Topological Closure is Closed" and can be linked to from here (or transcluded if you're brave) as an instance of this.


 * Two important things need to be done:


 * Most important, cannot stress this enough: every instance of links to the existing Closure is Closed page needs to be changed to link to Topological Closure is Closed
 * Just to close the circle of definitions, so to speak, a Definition:Closed Set in the sense of topological closure needs to be demonstrated (trivial as it is) to be an instance of a Definition:Closed Element in the context of a general Definition:Closure Operator.


 * Once this has all been done, the whole concept of Definition:Closure (Topology) can then be migrated to be an instance (transcluded, with appropriate page renaming) of the Definition:Closure Operator.


 * The moral of this story: it pays to work out in advance what the general big picture is before picking at the edges - a refactoring job such at this needs to be attacked strategically. In this situation I know what I'm talking about because I have been doing this sort of job for the last 20 years or so. --prime mover (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Task 1 of the above has been done. This page can now be renamed to Closure is Closed. Feel free to discuss before this is done. --prime mover (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to propose a major refactoring job until I had enough results up to justify it, so I tucked them away behind the topological ones until we figured out where to go. Thanks for working it out. --Dfeuer (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just one more point: It helps to inform one's fellow contributors when the refactoring (including published preparation) is smeared out over a larger period of time, like in this particular case. This will reduce misunderstanding and resulting annoyance, as well as give others the chance to drop suggestions beforehand, thus potentially saving double work (if a suggestion done afterwards is considered "better enough" to do it again). But in the end: progress :). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)