Talk:Type (type theory)

Topic of this article
Currently, the link type (computer science) points to the article data type, which covers only a very narrow concept of type, but is referred to from many CS articles, where it is used in a broader sense, e.g. from the type system lemma. This issue cannot be solved in data type nor in type theory. This stub article now allows to refer to the more general concept of types as used in both mathematics and computer science. Therefore, it should not be used as a kitchen sink for various kinds of types, but stick to point of types in general. -- Cobalt pen (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like you need a decent article before you decide lots of things should redirect to it. In this particular case, you are effectively splitting a section out of Type theory into a standalone article.  What you wrote was uncited and unstructured; I was tempted to revert it wholesale, and a different reviewer did just that.  A good strategy in these cases is to expand the relevant section in place, then split it when it has some meat on the bones (with sufficient references!).  At first glance, this one looks slightly contentious to me so a WP:SPLIT discussion might be a good idea.
 * Specific to the computer science redirect target, consider not only what you think a precise scientific meaning of the term might be, but what readers of an encyclopaedia might be looking for as well as the context of existing wikilinks. If readers and wikilinks for type in a computer science context most commonly are interested in the data type, and I would suggest there is quite a good case for the view, then it should redirect to data type.  Bear in mind that redirects are not strict synonyms and they are not dictionary definitions, they are navigation aids.  If you really feel a different target would better reflect that term for the majority of readers then there is always redirects for discussion; see if people think it should be re-targetted to Type theory or maybe even somewhere else, and if so it would naturally follow if and when that section gets split out.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)