Talk:Homotopy Characterisation of Simply Connected Sets

Another compelling reason to include the chapter of Munkres where the section can be found: so that when you link back to the book with, you know which chapter of that book the section can be found in. In this case. aesthetic principles should not overrule inclusion of information - as aesthetics are relative (i.e. you may be the only one who sees it as ugly) and information content is absolute. --prime mover (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but: 1) Every odd page in Munkres has the section number (the even pages have the chapter number); 2) his content list contains both chapter and section numbers. Readers don't need the chapter number to look up his theorems. I'll clamp them on, though, if you insist. --Anghel (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What does it matter what page the chapter number and theorem number are printed on?? What matters is (a) what chapter it's in and (b) what section it's in. Sorry, but I do insist. How you format it does not really matter - do it so it looks neat, e.g. do it like the references to (look some up), that's neat enough, yeah? My initial quibble was using a comma to separate hierarchical entities, which is not only lame, it's mathematically misleading.


 * I'm sorry to be so dogmatica about this, but this sort of formatting comes automatically and intuitively to me, and I have a fine eye for this sort of detail, and I cannot understand why other people don't have the same sort of aesthetic sense. No worries. --prime mover (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, completely ignore the above, and feel free to continue doing it the same way you were. I realise belatedly that the citation style used by Clark is exactly the same as you are doing with Munkres. --prime mover (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)