Talk:Restriction of Continuous Mapping is Continuous/Continuous mappings

I would suggest that instead, the article Restriction of Continuous Mapping is Continuous/Topological Spaces is merged into this one. The reason is that we should not order into versions for different settings, but into local and global versions. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree -- the Topological Space is the object on which this particular result resides.

Local and Global versions will have their own separate pages.

This is how existing similar results are configured. For the sake of consistency across the site, that is how this one will also go. --prime mover (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is, we will not implement a structural change whose consequences are far-reaching based on one recommendation which so far is without real argumentation except personal preference. Too often paradigm shifts have been proposed, enthusiastically started on, and the project abandoned half-way, leaving the site in a state worse than it was before.

So if you are strongly convinced that your approach is better in the long run, I encourage you to populate your sandbox area (any subpage of your user page) with material that convinces us of said superiority. As an added bonus, these pages will not have to be written from scratch upon acceptance of the proposal. — Lord_Farin (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I did not know that the pages are usually arranged in this way. I think what this comes down to is do the less general proofs have intrinsic value. As they are sometimes simpler than the proofs in the more general setting, I think this is the case. Thus, I have to admit that having a seperate version for metric spaces may be beneficial. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)