Talk:Quasi-category

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quasi-category. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706214636/http://www.crm.cat/HigherCategories/hc2.pdf to http://www.crm.cat/HigherCategories/hc2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
There should be a separate page for infinity categories explaining what they should be and some of the expected abstract properties one should expect from an infinity category. This infinity category page should then reference the pages on the various models for infinity categories, such as quasi-categories, grothendieck infinity categories, and so on. Moreover, there should be a page for test categories and their relation to infinity categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.237.250 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. —Guanaco 07:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Quasi-category → ∞-category – It's a more common name. I understand a quasi-category is one model of an infinity category and, as suggested in above, it makes sense to have separate articles but for now one article, covering both the concept and the popular model, suffices, in my humble opinion. -- Taku (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for the iconoclasm provoking annoyance of the looks of > ∞-category <, especially in any heading, and the hardship of typing it, and for the uncertainty of where the "∞" might have found its place in various realized alphabetic orderings. I won't comment on the claim it being a more common name. Purgy (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I find ∞ a kind of cute :) Mathematicians are sometimes accused for being dull (see Math Has No God Particle) and so this shows we can be fun too. And yes cuteness requires a proof, like everything else! -- Taku (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I protest against establishing a cuteness-axiom for "∞". :p Anyhow, please, do not give more weight to my objections than the practical and esthetic reasons for opposing deserve. Sadly, I am too ignorant on this by far to even mention that I'd prefer Infinity category to ∞-category, and certainly I'd never dare to consider any mathematician as being dull. ;) Purgy (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note about the bot's spurious notice. I removed the section started by my bot. Silly bot. It thought that  was a "different" page than  . This cosmetic edit stopped the notice from being posted. Fixing this to upper-case the first letter before comparing page names is on my to-do list now. Thanks for reporting this issue. wbm1058 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no, we should not have a title that requires someone to type in the infinity sign to reach it. I don't really care that redirects make it easier, the main page title should be reachable to the common reader without a redirect. This would go against that We should strive to have names in natural language as opposed to symbols when at all possible. There are a few pages with ∞ in the title, but I would support moving them to a natural language title as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)