Talk:Patent val/Properties

Consolidate page

I don't think this page makes sense to be separate from the other information on "generalized patent vals".

On the discussion page for "patent val" (the page where "generalized patent val" currently redirects), I am recommending that "generalized patent val" be renamed to "uniform map" and "patent val" be renamed to "integer uniform map" (or "nearest map"). The key point here is that I think it is better to think of the latter as specific types of the former, rather than the former being generalized types of the latter. If I convince others of my case, then the structure of that page would need to be inverted, and the main page would be about the concept formerly thought of as "generalized".

In that case, the material here would simply be merged into that page too. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's the consequence of the previous movement in the hope to hide mathy contents from normies. FloraC (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay. That's commendable. I should have figured that out myself. Thanks --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Page is only about GPVs?

Shouldn't this page actually be "Generalized patent val/Properties", since it's only about GPVs? Back on the Patent val page, the link to this page should probably be moved accordingly as well (i.e. into the section for GPVs there). --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There is not a distinct page for GPV. FloraC (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, we shouldn't have a "[Topic]/[Subtopic]" page when the "[Topic]" page doesn't exist.

Well, it seems fine to break "Generalized patent val" out to its own page. Can you think of any reason not to do so? --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. For fear of fragmentation? The two concepts are so closely related that it seems favorable to bundle them together. FloraC (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)