(October 2007)

Move to Wikipedia:Number was discussed (bottom of page) and was opposed.

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)

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. --Siva1979^{Talk 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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion here (including rationale) is an expansion of the relevant section of the notability science page. Perhaps a {{main}} 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)

• 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)

Sorry. I don't have time to research what the "opposite" of {{main}} 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)

• I tentatively disagree with that. This page has proven its usefulness whenever somebody makes an article on an arbitrary number, chemical compound, element, or something else that theoretically has infinite examples. The very short section in WP:SCI hardly covers that. >Radiant< 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose amending Question 2 as follows, to address irrational numbers, as shown below. Knodeltheory 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Is the sequence listed in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences? (In the case of sequences of rational numbers, does the OEIS have the sequences of numerators and denominators of the relevant fractions? In the case of irrational numbers, does the OEIS list both the decimal expansion and the continued fraction?)

That sounds good, I'll add it. PrimeFan 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe this ought to be split into subsections (in one page). One subsection for kinds of numbers, one subsection for integers, one for irrationals, and so on. Also, the stuff about Wikipedia not having infinite server storage: it's a tiny bit worn out and shrill. Knodeltheory 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some things apply better just to integers, others just to irrational numbers, etc. As for the rant about Wikipedia's server storage, saying "it's a tiny bit worn out and shrill" is one heck of an understatement. Anton Mravcek 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It may need a bit of rewording, but the principle is as valid as ever, whenever any user creates an article on an arbitrary number, or atom, or chemical compound just because "it could technically exist". >Radiant< 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the shrillness of the storage space rant until I crunched a few numbers. Let's say for the sake of argument WP:NUM called for articles on the first million positive integers (it actually calls for much less) and a small handful of other numbers. Let's say each article requires a megabyte. If my calculations are correct, that would be a gigabyte in the main server and maybe five gigabytes in the backup servers. We're so worried about one gigabyte? One of my e-mail accounts has two gigabytes' worth of crap like "Enlarge your penis and/or breasts" and "Help me move my money out of Nigeria." How would I prefer that it was clogged up with things like "19873699 is the integer after 19873698..."!

We don't need any reminders that numbers are infinite. But the fact is, that the subset of numbers anyone could look up in Wikipedia is very small. And if we strike out those numbers that will only be looked up only out of curiosity on whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that number, we're left with an even smaller subset. That subset, give or take a few members, is the exact same subset WP:NUM calls for.

This particular preceding paragraph would work so much better as a rationale than that super-shrill "not infinite server storage" rant. Anton Mravcek 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just loose enforcement of the notability guidelines will make the storage space issue a remote possibility. Strict enforcement makes it an impossibility. CompositeFan 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The stuff about years and chemical compounds would be better served here just by linking it to the applicable notability guidelines.

• The reason that clause exists is because some people (generally those ill-versed in mathematics) consider it funny to make articles like 789357489 A.D. or hexniloctium, and because some people used to argue that yes, we should have individual articles on every single compound, atom, or year that will "obviously" exist at some point. It is less relevant to natural numbers, and could use a better example than that. >Radiant< 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How often does that happen? And when it does happen, how many deletionists jump on the case? How quickly do such things get deleted? Anton Mravcek 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see the proposed WP:YEARS going anywhere, as it doesn't effectively propose anything beyond the single sentence that was in this page for a long time (or if it does, such extensions do not appear to be agreed upon). As such I would prefer keeping it here; I don't believe it's all that useful to create a new guideline simply to move a single sentence to a new page. >Radiant< 08:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's starting to go somewhere and all we had to do was ask. Anton Mravcek 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to talk about years at all is to be condescending to number theory aficionados. You think they don't know numbers are infinite. They have taken an immense amount of crap on this, which is just like totally unfair because they know better than everyone that numbers are infinite, and the many ways in which they are infinite. Talking about chemical compounds and undiscovered elements is also incredibly condescending and insulting.

But we have to assume good faith, even in the face of overwhelming condescension. So at the very least, these need to be pointed to the appropriate policy. Concensus is starting to form for WP:YEARS, and hopefully in the future we can get rid of the other two vestiges of condescension. CompositeFan 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we leave the language along with a link to the proposed guideline for now as a compromise. The outcome here will be based on the success or failure of the proposal. Discussion of the merits of the proposal are better off at that talk page. --Kevin Murray 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • CompositeFan put her finger right on the button. The only purpose of the language is to condescend, to talk down to. Some people get a real jolly out of talking down to others. Anton Mravcek 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

As a notability guideline, WP:NUMBER is erroneous and wayward. It is way too complicated; it contains too many questions requiring original research on the part of the wikipedian, ...

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)

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)

Numerao, clearly a misunderstanding! Looking something up in a book is not original research. It is what is to be encouraged. Asking: “Are there at least three interesting and unrelated mathematical properties of this integer?” is encouraging original research, if it can be answered by demonstrating the properties. If you can find information on the number in a book (reliable & independent, both pretty easily achieved for a number), then you have satisfied WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR. You must of course cite your source. I don’t see WP:NUMBER contributing anything useful to a better interpretation of WP:N, or deriving its logic from WP:N. --SmokeyJoe 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• No; unlike many {{guidelines}}, this page is widely used within its scope; every time we have AFD:874902357(number), this page (or some equivalent procedure) gets used. In short, this documents what we actually do, which is a good thing. Thank you, and good night. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Clearly, the proposal to re-tag this page as {{essay}} is not going to happen. However, moves are underway to move this guideline to outside of the umbrella of the notability guideline. See the top of this page. --SmokeyJoe 05:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Moved from top of page. Discussion at the bottom of this page. This guideline is not really a notability guideline, it is not based on nor derived from notability. I would be better as a stand-alone guideline. The movehas been proposed or discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (numbers), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers and Wikipedia_talk:Notability, without resulting in opposition. This move/reclassification of this guideline is part of long-term active effort to consolidate and rationalise the notability guidelines (see WT:N).

The move target Wikipedia:Numbers is a currently a redirect (to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) with a trivial history. Please delete the redirect to allow for the move. --SmokeyJoe 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems more like a backhanded attempt to remove this as a notability guideline (which has been strongly and clearly opposed whenever it's come up) and less like a legitimate improvement of nomenclatures. In particular this is intended as "really a notability guideline" in the sense that its primary purpose is to differentiate between number-related subjects that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and those that are not. —David Eppstein 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as at bottom of page. David has it right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

“Notability” on wikipedia has been a poorly defined and abused term. However, things are improving. Wikipedia-notability is becoming tamed, to be less associated with the nebulous real world usage, to being tied to the existence of suitable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability. Suitable sources are almost always secondary sources, and the sort of subject involved is becoming to be seen as not usually important.

With this in mind, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) seems a bit archaic, not up to scratch. Its most immediate problem as a notability guideline is that it is not based on WP:N, and in part is not compatible with WP:N. In short, it is not tying notions of notability to sourcing.

What I was meaning to do was not meant to be backhanded. It is indeed intended to remove this as a “notability guideline”. The intention is to better connect the guideline with the wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers). I personally don’t see any need for this guideline to reproduce any of WP:N. WP:N says what it says just fine.

In its current state, the guideline’s attempt “to differentiate between number-related subjects that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and those that are not” is clumsy. I believe that this job would be better achieved if it stopped trying to do it in terms of “notability”. --SmokeyJoe 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

David, Pmanderson, are you there? Is there anyone who actually cares about this page? --SmokeyJoe 11:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This section, which applies "for example" to polynomials, was added on March 2008 by 41.224.200.234 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)

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)

Michael Hardy and E235 must give their opinion, and an editing from an IP from Tunisia doesn't harm En.wikipedia. Also a single opinion against OEIS without concensus is not sufficient to delete a whole section edited by several users Etaittunpe (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that not allowing obvious sockpuppets to write our policies and guidelines is reason enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The commentary on OEIS in the #Notability of sequences of numbers section seems much more reasonable. If the "notability of special functions" section were to be included, the three non-OEIS requirements would be necessary for inclusion. OEIS isn't really applicable.

Boubaker polynomials seems to fail condition 4, as there are different families of polynomials called "Boubaker polynomials". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone who is not agreeing with you is a sockpuppet so ...!!!

Sir Arthur Rubin; you are becoming democratic now ??? You are now aware about the dager of uncorrect fundaments of some intreventers in the opposite of EN:WP independence and democraty line ???

Actually, Michael Hardy should be asked his opinion (E235 just added an "other language" link), but the inserted and reinserted guideline for inclusion of sequences of polynomials is absurd, as I noted above; a sequence of integers could be notable as a sequence of polynomials without being notable as a sequence of integers.

WP#NOT a democracy. Still, it appears that there is appoximately one actual peer-reviewed paper on this subject, which doesn't have Boubaker as an author (so point 1 fails); and there was one source given (in one of the fr: discussions) of another name for this sequence of polynomials (so point 4 may fail; more research is required, and the article shouldn't exist at this name if the name is not actually used.).

As a sometime-reviewer of peer-reviewed journals, I can assert that peer-review is not necessarily an indication of notability, other than that the authors of that paper think it's notable; it's only an indication of accuracy. If some of the authors of papers have individual reliability, then those papers provide evidence of notability.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a forum to discuss the Boubaker polynomials. The addition of a section on special functions was done without consensus. As described in WP:SILENCE, it can sometimes be acceptable to assume consensus, until the disagreement is voiced. Now that it is voiced, the addition needs clear consensus developed on this page.

I object to the addition, as it does not adequately describe the notability criteria currently in use, nor would it assist editors in understanding the guidelines. Peer reviewed articles in respectable, scholarly journals is the best way to establish notability of a mathematical concept. This page is designed to help in the special cases of particular numbers (not polynomials), since it may be unrealistic to have multiple peer-reviewed articles on a single number, even if that particular number otherwise clearly has many specific, non-negligible discussions in other reliable sources. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur in objecting. Polynomials or other special functions are off topic on this page, dedicated to numbers. French Tourist (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, this discussion is still continued. So, as French Tourist (who is also a known FrenchWP user ) who deleted the last version edted by the two EN:WP users Michael Hardy and E235 MUST (FOR RESPECT PURPOSE) restore their version (he deleted) until the discussion is closed with a consensus ,???is there any objection??Etaittunpe (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I just said, we object to the restoration of the special functions section until there is demonstrated consensus to add it. There is not currently any such consensus. On a technical matter, E235's contributions have not been affected by any of this. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

the matter is that what was deleted WAS edited by a respectful user Michael Hardy , His opinion ,(when he edited, managed an svaed the last version that FrenchTourist deleted with reference to an Arab IP range with no link to user Michael Hardy ) is to be respected , His Last edited version is to be restored according to UNIVERSAL ethics. Anyone is against ?????Etaittunpe (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know whay Arthur Rubin is insisting to name me Boubaker Spa!! if only he knows that I dream to have the 1/10th of this mystreious 'Boubaker's publications or Scientific level :))

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)

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)

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)

I was also unaware of this until today. Jkasd 07:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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)

Now at AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)