Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This, I must say, is brilliant. It exists somewhere between the funny, and the shockingly necessary. Cheers. Peruvianllama 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree.--Alhutch 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Uncle G. Reyk 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
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)
[edit] Infiniteness
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] Numbers are not verifiable
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)
- Uncontested, i replaced the text with something i think is more appropriate. Fresheneesz 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hereby contested. Math is de facto verifiable (addition is not original research), and that Wikipedia is not infinite is one of the strongest arguments for making a notability guideline for numbers. >Radiant< 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- If I say "348 is 6 times 29" that is easily verifiable with a calculator and the providing of citations for that would be the most dully pedantic formality. But I really wanted to indulge someone, I could cite at least two books that have tables of factorizations for the first thousand or so positive integers.
On the other hand, if I say something like "348 is the only integer such that the Strudelman complex integers mod p always form the conjugate of the reciprocal of n," then I had better provide a citation. PrimeFan 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that addition or multiplication doesn't need sources to be verified. However, such random listings couldn't really assert importance, and would then fall under CSD criteria.
Also, wikipedias physical resources have been declared by the wikipedias administration to be not a useful argument for any policy. Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber has said: "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job.".
Therefore, I propose reinstating my edits to this page. Wikipedia's finite resources are not our concern, it is the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is our concern.
I also propose changes to the quote I contested at the top of this section. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could change it? Fresheneesz 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to Brion, we needn't concern ourselves with how finite Wikipedia is. But it is obviously finite, so we do not propose to create articles on every integer (or worse, every real number). Such articles could be swiftly generated by a bot, to double Wikipedia's content within a day if need be. But we don't want that. >Radiant< 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- He says "server load", which includes thinking about wikipedia's finiteness at all. As someone suggested above, for all intents and purposes wikipedia does not have finite resources. What i mean by this is that computing power, memory, storage, and server capacity are all growing faster than demand. Therefore wikipedia's finite-ness is not an issue either. Fresheneesz 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to Brion, we needn't concern ourselves with how finite Wikipedia is. But it is obviously finite, so we do not propose to create articles on every integer (or worse, every real number). Such articles could be swiftly generated by a bot, to double Wikipedia's content within a day if need be. But we don't want that. >Radiant< 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that addition or multiplication doesn't need sources to be verified. However, such random listings couldn't really assert importance, and would then fall under CSD criteria.
- If I say "348 is 6 times 29" that is easily verifiable with a calculator and the providing of citations for that would be the most dully pedantic formality. But I really wanted to indulge someone, I could cite at least two books that have tables of factorizations for the first thousand or so positive integers.
- Hereby contested. Math is de facto verifiable (addition is not original research), and that Wikipedia is not infinite is one of the strongest arguments for making a notability guideline for numbers. >Radiant< 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- In a word, no. For a longer answer, you'd have to look up in some math book what the fundamental difference is between some arbitrarily large number, and infinity. We could double the amount of articles in a single day if we were to write factual, verifiable articles about all factual, verifiable numbers. That's a Bad Thing. >Radiant< 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about CSD? If those articles don't assert their significance, doesn't CSD give people free reign to delete them? Fresheneesz 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly, but there's a well-known mathematical proof that all numbers are significant (by induction: (1) assume we have a set of insignificant numbers. (2) order this set by magnitude. (3) now this set has a smallest number, which seems significant. (4) iterate until the set is empty. (5) QED. ) >Radiant< 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. Please familiarize yourself with what the criteria for speedy deletion actually are. Uncle G 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about CSD? If those articles don't assert their significance, doesn't CSD give people free reign to delete them? Fresheneesz 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look, let's not worry about all numbers. Let's just worry about the numbers that people could conceivably want to look up. That includes -1 to 101, certainly e, pi, 163, 1729, possibly 108, the list doesn't get much bigger than that. PrimeFan 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the list of numbers on wikipedia already has gotten lots bigger than that. Do you have an opinion on the following statement, PrimeFan?:
- "a verifiable and neutral point of view article can be written for any number (by just listing a few arithmetic equalities)"
- Radiant, why in gods name would the smallest insignificant number be somehow significant because of that? That just doesn't make sense. You're using a logical falicy to prove an argument. Your falicy is that you have a set of all insignificant numbers, but then you claim that one is significant - obvious falacy. Fresheneesz 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- In response to your question about my opinion on that statement: I don't like it very much and I kind of disagree with it. For example, it would be very tough to write a correct and verifiable article on the exponential factorial of 20, minus 43. PrimeFan 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- That would be Reductio ad absurdum. I made an assertion, that some set of numbers are insignificant, and then by logical reasoning from that assertion ended up with a contradiction in terms, as you just pointed out. Therefore, it follows that the assertion was incorrect, and hence, all numbers are significant. >Radiant< 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then tell me why the smallest insignificant number is now significant? Thats very arbitrary, and simply wouldn't hold up as assertion of significance. You know that *you* wouldn't consider it to be sufficiant assertion of significance. I know you would delete an article on that with A7. Am I wrong? Fresheneesz 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- We have an article on the interesting number paradox. It is even linked to in the explanation given. Please actually read what this page says first, before trying to completely change it. And if you want to change the WikiProject Numbers' criteria, please join that WikiProject. Uncle G 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I will. But i'm not trying to completey change this page - I'm just disputing a single sentence on the page. Thats all. Fresheneesz 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- We have an article on the interesting number paradox. It is even linked to in the explanation given. Please actually read what this page says first, before trying to completely change it. And if you want to change the WikiProject Numbers' criteria, please join that WikiProject. Uncle G 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then tell me why the smallest insignificant number is now significant? Thats very arbitrary, and simply wouldn't hold up as assertion of significance. You know that *you* wouldn't consider it to be sufficiant assertion of significance. I know you would delete an article on that with A7. Am I wrong? Fresheneesz 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the list of numbers on wikipedia already has gotten lots bigger than that. Do you have an opinion on the following statement, PrimeFan?:
- (deindent) That sentence does correspond to the main point of this page, which is to get rid of pages like 473298473 (number) that people tend to create in a failed attempt at wit. Technically I could even make a case of speedying those under G2 or G4. >Radiant< 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then take advantage of those technicalities. How exactly would 473298473 verifiably assert significance? Fresheneesz 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point, it's not a notable number, regardless of verifiability. >Radiant< 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Saying something is "not notable" is a far cry from "not asserting significance". You can't disregard verifiability, its policy. I'm talking about CSD A7 here, also policy. It doesn't and can't assert significance, *regardless* of notability. Fresheneesz 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Once more, if you can make a clear and reasonably-supported difference between "significance" and "notability", please tell me. >Radiant< 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let me put this in words you'll understand: "not notable" is a far cry from "not asserting notability". Ok? Those are different, are you telling me they're not? Fresheneesz 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Once more, if you can make a clear and reasonably-supported difference between "significance" and "notability", please tell me. >Radiant< 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Saying something is "not notable" is a far cry from "not asserting significance". You can't disregard verifiability, its policy. I'm talking about CSD A7 here, also policy. It doesn't and can't assert significance, *regardless* of notability. Fresheneesz 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point, it's not a notable number, regardless of verifiability. >Radiant< 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is this a guideline?
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)
- Every guideline is a full guideline. >Radiant< 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Supporting WP:NUM
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)
- There is no sneering, and as the article says "For more in-depth and carefully considered evaluations of these issues, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers." That is where the additions, which are "in-depth [...] evaluations of these issues", belong. The WikiProject already talks about the numbers that should be included, and its talk page has discussion of why. Uncle G 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Once again: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers is where lengthy discussions and evaluations of the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers should go. Uncle G 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] continuum of primes?
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)
- The wording was "non-prime". >Radiant< 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm?
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)
