Template talk:Binary relations

This template is intended to be a counterpart of Template:Algebraic structures.

To do:
 * embed into some show/hide mechanism (some variant of Template:Navbox?)
 * enter irreflexive variants (e.g. reflexive partial order / irreflexive partial order)
 * sort and group lines into a meaningful order (e.g. separate "equiv rel" from all others, separate well-order variants from lattice variants)
 * same for columns
 * implement a parameter which line to highlight (and remove its link)
 * ((Seems to be unnecessary, as the link to the hosting article page is automatically removed in lattice (order).  Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)))

Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Style Inconsistency?
Currently, the check mark is a .png image file, while the X mark is a unicode character. I think it would be better to be consistent; either do ✅ → ✅ and ❌ → ❌, or do ✅ → ✅ and ❌ → ❌. Which style would be preferable? Here's a table of the different Wikipedia check mark templates; the check-mark and X-mark used ought to be in the same row:

—GreatBigDot (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For now I'm going to switch the check marks over to Unicode. Like I said above, a consistent formatting makes the most sense to me, and this seems like the best option in lieu of a discussion on the matter. GreatBigDot (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Problems
Just saw this template for the first time. It needs work.


 * "All relations are transitive" That's certainly not true.  All the types of relations listed in the table are transitive.
 * "... and irreflexive" That's complete nonsense.  The relations in the table are almost all reflexive, and thus not irreflexive (unless the domain is empty).
 * Actually, for the order relations, whether they are reflexive or not is a matter of choice of definition; one can use either a strict or non-strict comparison. As it is, it seems very strange for lattices to not be called reflexive while semilattices are.

209.179.76.209 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Too wide
The first time I saw it, his template appeared as garbage on my screen. After many minutes of experimentation, I made it viewable by reducing text size until it fit. Other readers should not have this much difficulty seeing this otherwise valuable table. What can be done to fix this problem? Comfr (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe some wizard can rotate the column headings to run upwards rather than rightwards? This would save a lot of horizontal space. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * could be used if this was a wikitable. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Bug report: Table is broken in Vector 2022
Jack who built the house (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation?useskin=vector-2022
 * 2) Expand
 * 3) See this.


 * On further testing, it is broken because of the gadget "Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. "sticky" (requires Chrome v91+, Firefox v59+, or Safari)" (js, css). @TheDJ not sure if you know about this. Jack who built the house (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's due to incorrect usage of nested tables. The gadget needs proper structure and doesn't care (and cannot know) about how someone made things 'look pretty'. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)