Category talk:Nonmathematical

Is Category:Nonmathematical intended for future deletion of (a subset of) non-mathematical pages? — Daniel Forgues 20:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to delete these or other articles. At this point I'm just categorizing -- it's interesting that we've used the category system for almost everything but categorizing articles. Eventually there will be a time to discuss the direction of the OEIS wiki, and this and other organizational categories should be helpful. But even then I don't forsee deleting all nonmathematical articles (or all essays, or all 'math dictionary' articles). Of course I've worked on a number of them myself, like memoization. Charles R Greathouse IV 21:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I should mention, though, that I *would* like to see (only after proper discussion, of course) the mass deletion of the superfluous categories. For some reason their addition is current policy, but I don't think that is a good idea. (Here I mean things like Category:Martin Heinrich Klaproth which contains only Martin Heinrich Klaproth.) But that's about organization, not content. Charles R Greathouse IV 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

[[Category:Article-title]] categories for [[Article-title]] pages

For almost every article page, I've created a corresponding category page, which is then categorized in other categories. The main reason why I started to do so was when the integer sequences had their pages on the wiki. For example, the article Fibonacci numbers has its own category Category:Fibonacci numbers, within which we also [previously] categorized the sequence page A000045 and possibly other sequence pages, although now all the sequence pages have been removed from the wiki (I have a vague feeling that at some point in the future we might have some kind of virtual sequence pages in the wiki, where an interwiki redirect would be allowed from the wiki to the main OEIS, so we would have a sequence page in the wiki, e.g. the wiki page A000045


#REDIRECT A000045 <!-- Doesn't currently work! Might the MediaWiki server be configured to allow an interwiki redirect to the main OEIS? -->


[[Category:Fibonacci numbers|*]]

— Daniel Forgues 08:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I don't mean that as criticism. I created whole structures of categories back in those days, in preparation for the mass categorization of sequences. When that didn't come to pass there were whole trees of categories without members. But those are obsolete now. My argument is that the same is now true for article-title categories: once they were a good idea but now they don't serve a purpose. But I'd like to see what others think before doing anything. Regardless, this isn't the place to discuss that. :) Charles R Greathouse IV 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be on a case-by-case basis. Klaproth, definitely yes, Fibonacci numbers, no. Alonso del Arte 02:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages and categories for: mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, chemists, etc.

The categories for mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, chemists, etc., are for organizational purposes (e.g. Fibonacci numbers is categorized in Category:Leonardo `Fibonacci').

The pages for (mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, chemists, etc., are for convenience purposes (and for defunct persons only) (they should contain essentially only (except for a few lines giving dates and perhaps some notable contributions) external links to biographies websites, especially on MacTutor) (see Leonardo `Fibonacci' for example).

— Daniel Forgues 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:Nonmathematical