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)#Lattices_as_partially_ordered_sets.   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 {{aye}} → Y and {{nay}} → N, or do {{y&}} → ✓ and {{n&}} → ✗. 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:

Check and cross marks
Check marks		Cross marks
{{tick}} = {{tick|20}} {{tick|colour=purple}} {{tick|color=cyan}} {{check mark}}	Y Y Y Y	{{cross}} = {{cross|20}} {{Cross|colour=orange}} {{Cross|color=black}}	N N N
{{aye}} and {{Y}}	Y	{{nay}} and {{N}}	N
{{ya}}		{{na}}
{{yan}}		{{nan}}
{{check mark-n}}	Y	{{x mark-n}}	N
{{y&}}	✓	{{n&}}	✗
{{Chk}}	✓
{{yeac}}	Y	{{nayc}}	N
{{yeag}}	Yg	{{nayg}}	Ng
{{Mby}}	Y	{{nayd}}	N2
{{checked box}} {{ticked box}}		{{unchecked box}} {{unticked box}}
{{xed box}}		{{unexed box}}
{{question mark box}}	?
Other marks
{{n.b.}}	*	{{hmmm}}	?
{{bang}}		{{idkc}}	?
{{equc}}	=	{{cloc}}	clock
Most of the templates above are fully sortable in a class="sortable" table (each check mark is assigned an undisplayed "Y" and each cross mark an undisplayed "N").

—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)