Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers)

message: I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move December 2005

message: The project page claims that although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, it does not have infinite storage space either. I would be curious to know whether the rate of addition of storage space exceeds the rate of addition of article text. I suspect it does. If it's true, then that point becomes moot, and WP could do the Gmail thing of effectively offering infinite space, because in practical usage, you would never run out. 
Of course, whether we actually *want* all that crud is what this article is about. But I don't think technical limitation is a real factor. Stevage 11:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, technical limitation should not be a real or important factor because storage technology improves all the time. Although ihe term infinite would be an inaccurate term to use, a proper term would be that Wikipedia servers have a very, very, large amount of space to add in a huge number of articles. Moreover, I feel that the philosophy behind this guideline would change considerably in the near future as well, given the rapid improvement of computer technology. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In agreement with the above statements, I propose changing the wording of that text. Since wikipedias resources is not an important factor at all, why not change it to say that "wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so only contains encyclopedic information". Comments? Fresheneesz 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infiniteness

message: I disagree with the statement: "Whilst a verifiable and neutral point of view article can be written for any number (by just listing a few arithmetic equalities), such articles are deemed unacceptable for Wikipedia." 
Verifiability is more than ones ability to see that it exists. On wikipedia, verifiability is the referencing of multiple reliable outside sources. If the usefulness of an article is questioned, any editor on wikipedia could propose, and win, a deletion for .. say.. the number 348. If those "arithmetic equalities" are not verifiable, then an article on such is not verifiable. Does anyone agree? Fresheneesz 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers are not verifiable 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thus why I asked if this was a guideline. If I know this is a guideline, then I know its a full guideline. Beyond your patronizing, I assume your answer is "yes, yes it is". Fresheneesz 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, Fresh, that statement "every guideline is a full guideline" is about as concise and factual as you can get; that is not supposed to be patronizing. >Radiant< 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not questioning the fact that all guidelines are full guidelines - therefore your comment gave me no new information. Except of course the implication that you think the answer is "yes". Fresheneesz 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: I think that PrimeFan's additions to this guideline supports a lot of what he has said at WP:NUM. The sneering "Wikipedia is not infinite" argument has been rehashed to death and he's directing our attention to the fact that a finite amount of numbers (most of the ones in the WP:NUM project range) are the ones that people will care to look up. Anton Mravcek 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting WP:NUM 

message: See prime number:
:a prime number (or a prime) is a natural number ...
Since a prime number is a natural number, there can't be a continuum of prime's between 0 and 1. I'll change the wording so that it isn't incorrect. Fresheneesz 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuum of primes?  

message: Hi.
I discovered this here as a criterion: "Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic? " But what do we mean by "professional" mathematicians? I would assume it means those who do it for money. Does this mean papers from people not doing it for money, but that still pass peer review in the journals would not be grounds for notability? If not, then maybe this should be changed to "Have papers been published on it in peer-reviewed academic journals?"? Hmm? 70.101.147.74 02:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm? 

message: This, I must say, is brilliant. It exists somewhere between the funny, and the shockingly necessary. Cheers. Peruvianllama 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Alhutch 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Excellent point, Uncle G. Reyk 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, awful point. It's not shockingly necessary at all. People who think that think they are the only ones with commonsense and everyone else lacks commonsense. Anton Mravcek 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sneerful comments

message: This page is now redundant to the numbers section at the notability science page.  As mentioned above the rest of the discussion here is more pertinent to the project pages.  Have redirected to science. --Kevin Murray 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion here (including rationale) is an expansion of the relevant section of the notability science page.  Perhaps a  there and the appropriate See Also link here would be better, but redirect is not appropriate without merging.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * No problem Arthur, I thought I would be bold to see the results.  I don't object to anything which is here so much as I object to the growing proliferation of rule-sets.  It was mentioned in a discussion at WP:N that this may have served its purpose and could fade away.  I see the notability infrastructure as being analogous to the tragedy of the commons, each page makes sense on its own, but collectively we risk an uncontrollable morass.  --Kevin Murray 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I don't have time to research what the "opposite" of  is at the moment, or I'd make the change myself.  Perhaps in about 23 hours....  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant - redirect

message: I propose amending Question 2 as follows, to address irrational numbers, as shown below. Knodeltheory 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, I'll add it. PrimeFan 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for irrational numbers 

message: I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, how is looking something up in a book original research? an whats wrong with suggesting to the 'wikipedian' some books that might talk about the topic at hand? Numerao 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.
... it sometimes underemphasises the importance of sources, and other times overstates the sourcing requirement, seemingly suggesting that entire books may be appropriate.  In the end, and perhaps this may surprise some of its supporters, it is way too restrictive.  To have an article, a number should only need to have some interesting information contained in an independent reliable source.  (A publication on a number by the discoverer of a number would not be independent).  Any number in actual use, such as counting numbers, could have its own article, provided there is something to say about it beyond a dictionary definition.  Of course, involved editors will decide to merge groups of numbers.  WP:NUMBER could be considered a fine guideline for numbers, but it should not claim to be derived from WP:N.
 
Accordingly, I propose that this guideline be moved to Wikipedia:Numbers (break the existing redirect); that it restrict references to notability to references to WP:N, and that it continue to concern itself with guiding the evolution of wikipedia content on the subject of numbers.  --SmokeyJoe 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Propose that this be re-labeled as an essay located at Wikipedia:Numbers and linked from WP:NUM, with that project deciding how to incorporate the text.  --Kevin Murray 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you hope to accomplish by this step, in terms of its effect on the creation and deletion of articles? —David Eppstein 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * This doesn't seem to have any meaningful effect either way.  Do you have examples where it does?  When you distill the advice here it just restates WP:N.  The special cases aren't special.  --Kevin Murray 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please explain how you find the multiple nontrivial sources about 27 (number) demanded by WP:N. There are plenty of sources for the individual facts in that article, and it's an article that would be stupid to omit from an encyclopedia, but it's difficult to find sources that are about that specific number, as opposed to being about a set of numbers that includes 27, or a set of objects the number of which is 27 (lines on a cubic, say), or that mention it trivially as part of a much larger work, or... The article does list two web pages about the number 27, but I wouldn't call them reliable. —David Eppstein 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many print resources including textbooks and reference books that will substantiate the text of that article.  If there aren't then it is original research or personal opinion which should be deleted.  --Kevin Murray 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you address the question without being so dogmatic? If you say that there exist sources where the mention of 27 as a number is nontrivial (say, a book or article about the number 27), please point to them. If you say that the act of collecting the documentable facts in the article turns it into OR by synthesis, and therefore that we shouldn't have an article about that number, I'm going to find it difficult to take you seriously as someone with the best interests of the readers at heart. —David Eppstein 02:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, first published in 1987. A revised edition came out in 1997. In between there have been other books, but for my money Wells's is the best. PrimeFan 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * This seems to be a rhetorical twist to somehow put this back on to my integrity which I find slightly offensive.  It is not up to me to find references for a poorly sourced article, although it does seem entirely reasonable to expect that the very basic assertions of the article would be covered by a text or reference book.  Failing that test, then I would advocate the deletion of the article. --Kevin Murray 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My point is that most number articles are necessarily equally poorly sourced. It's part of the nature of this sort of article. And yet I think most editors would agree that we should keep the articles on numbers this small. It's not as if we need a source to be certain that 27 is the number we say it is, anyway. Therefore, we need to use a standard of notability that makes sense for this sort of article rather than trying to fit all topics into the same Procrustean bed. —David Eppstein 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm among the people who believe that notability should be assumed if there is a reasonable expectation that a verifiable independent source is obtainable though not yet included as a reference.  I arbitrarily selected 26 and read through the article seeing a lot of information which seems quite plausible, but is not documented -- if it were WP:N would be satisfied.  A quick trip to the library would cure that, so I don't dispute the notability of 26.  I also noticed that 26 cites an article of that name at Britanica; if EB has articles on all numbers, then Notability at WP is guaranteed for all numbers most reasonably notable numbers. --Kevin Murray 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't allow WP as a source, because it's tertiary; shouldn't the same reasoning apply to EB? And "all numbers"? EB is infinite, nowadays? —David Eppstein 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not aware of any specific prohibition against tertiary sources.  I do think that some people feel that citing WP within WP can lead to circular referencing and inbred research.  Yes, you nailed me on my imprecise statement of "all numbers", be proud as you are clever.  Cheers! And a good evening to you.  --Kevin Murray 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: David, No!  Tertiary sources are ideal for WP:N.  They prove others write about it.  See the first pillar (WP:5P).  Wikipedia is not allowed because wikipedia is not “other”.
Countable numbers should easily pass WP:N because they are in widespread use.  Borderline counting number cases for WP:N would be numbers so large that no human has ever verifiably used it to count.  The only real test I imagine for countable numbers is whether the entry is more than a dictionary entry, which comes from WP:NOT and is nothing to do with WP:N.
It is quite another matter that a large number of articles need referencing.  One of wikipedia’s most valuable uses is as a place to find the best reputable and reliable sources.  We should improve weak articles, not write notability guidelines around them. --SmokeyJoe 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: David Wells's book, which I mention above, covers all the integers from -1 to (+)101 and some from 102 to 1001, and a small handful from 1001 to Graham's number. PrimeFan 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * PF, if you have this book, could you take the time to add it as a reference where it supports the information in the various articles?  Thanks! --Kevin Murray 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You already said it best: "We should improve weak articles, not write notability guidelines around them." I could hardly agree more. Vassyana 07:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment If I was a deletionist, I think I'd have more fun with cases like AFD:874902357(number) if there wasn't some neat "WP:*" thing to cite. PrimeFan 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That will not happen without the discussion section WP:RM requests: but, for the record, I oppose the move as well. This page is about notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be re-labeled an essay

message: :Bduke, what do you think of my assessment about Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), specifically that WP:NUMBER is neither an elaboration nor derived from WP:N, that it is actually condensed from WP:NUM, and that the wikiproject would actually be better able to manage their subject specific guideline by having it stand on its own merits rather than keeping it as a notability sub-guideline?  --SmokeyJoe 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a late response. One learns something everyday. I did not know that WP:NUMBER existed. I thought that the Maths WP would sort of oversee this problem about numbers. I do agree with you. I think specific criteria looked after by a WP is better than a free standing guideline that might not be looked after by anyone. --Bduke 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[WT:N]]

message: I have proposed that Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) be moved to Wikipedia:Numbers (break the existing redirect); that it restrict references to notability to references to WP:N, and that it continue to concern itself with guiding the evolution of wikipedia content on the subject of numbers.  Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers)‎.  --SmokeyJoe 05:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: taht sounds good , eccept I woudln't say anything about "guiding teh evolution of wikipedia content" let that evolve on it's own. I wuold also remove all teh irrleveant stuff like talking about years and chemcical compounds and crystal ball. Numerao 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers]]

message: okay because you asked nicely :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.151.253 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: vandalism 

message: This section, which applies "for example" to polynomials, was added on March 2008 by  an IP from the same Tunisian range as one of the IPs which took part to a bewildering round of sockpuppetry around Boubaker polynomials - see this archive (in French) about this issue,
By a funny coincidence, a brand new contributor is now citing this text on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) ().
OK we are not complete fools, I remove this section. French Tourist (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  For an integer sequence, I'd say it not appearing in OEIS is definitive that it is not notable, but that's just me.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed section "Notability of special functions" 

message: The reason given by this user  is " an edit by to a precised Arab-country-issued  IP range "
Users: Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd and Asenine 
(They should, at least be informed, and express their agreement) 
How to engage a WP:request for re-establishing these users deleted edits ??Hilberts (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edits of the following users have been deleted BEFORE having any consensus, by a single user 

message: The reason an edit by to a precised Arab-country-issued  IP range is to be justified.
The version edited and confirmed by this number of users (Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd and Asenine)   is to be kept until they abort their action or  a consensus is made. (See WP Standards)Auclairde (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The given reason is not enough 

message: This edit summary appears to assert that I approved this edit.  In fact I was not consulted about it and had no notice that this edit would be done. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did not approve this edit 

message: The article 99999 has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:The first entry might be worthy of a redirect, but the Feynman point, logically, should be pointed to by 999999. I don't think it's worth keeping the redirect.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at AfD.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[99999]] 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNGs and GNG 

message: While not having an OEIS entry is certainly grounds for not having a sequence included in Wikipedia, there are over three hundred thousand entries in OEIS, most of them rather obscure, and many of them do not even occur in a publication. Having a Wikipedia article for most of them would be rather silly.  Just to grab a random recent example: What notability should be imparted on OEIS:A346306, "Position in OEIS:A076478] of the binary complement of the n-th word in OEIS:A076478"?
Trex4321 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think OEIS counts as a reliable in-depth publication on a sequence (every new entry or other change there goes through multiple levels of editorial review rather than, as here, allowing unreviewed edits to appear publicly). But it is only one source and we need multiple independent sources for notability. The example you list of A346306 lists no other publications on the same sequence, let alone publications that are reliable and sufficiently independent (not by the same people responsible for the OEIS entry), so it appears non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of OEIS sequences