Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.
I think that the redirect 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 → Googol should be deleted, because it doesn't fit into Special:Allpages. --22.214.171.124 09:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Who will write 100...00 (100 zeroes) instead of googol in title? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 10:39, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
- How about a following rule: every redirect starting at a number more than 20 digits long should be deleted if a number has more compact name. Do you agree with that? LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:09, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
- psst* If a number with more than 20 digits doesn't have a compact name, then its decimal expansion wouldn't be a redirect at the first place. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:09, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
Matthew's Function shouldn't be deleted Edit
I think we can keep mattthew's function, when The author puts an external link and defines it in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares.I.G.Harrison (talk • contribs) 11:13, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
- If someone takes their time to write a quality article about this function, I won't delete. I don't want on this wiki a notation based almost solely on few examples. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:35, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
- BEAF article has at least historical reasons to stay. If it was some new notation defined in a way it is, I probably would want to delete it as well. Beyond that, my main point with wanting to delete Matthew's function is the quality issue, and the fact that the definition can be fixed without a bigger problem if one took their time. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:58, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
I think Utter Oblivion should not be deleted! Edit
I just wrote a page called Utter Oblivion,and it was quickly labeled as a candidat for deletion.
I made the page respectably and I put the sources this time,so I do not see a reason for it to be deleted.
If someone thinks it should get deleted,than tell me and I will correct myself.
- Functions that can compute numbers from any functions with n symbols is illdefined. AarexWikia04 - 17:37, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
Well...,that`s how it was defined in the source.
Jonathan Bowers,himself said it.I did not add anything that wasn`t clearly stated in the original article.
- I don't think this article should be deleted, as the same way the article for Oblivion isn't deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
Googology Course should not be deleted. It is a great way to learn googology. It tell you what order you learn everything. It's helpful and should not be deleted. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 22:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
It has a source. Check it. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 23:29, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
It has a source. Check again Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 00:07, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I see what you are getting at. What I mean is, usually the source is linked directly (that is, a URL is added with a link to the source). That page does not have that. This is necessary to show the source can be reached. Username5243 (talk) 00:09, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- There is no rules that a souce has to be linked (most books can't be linked, for example), so I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. However, I suggest the page's deletion for a different reason: The page appears to be promotional in tone. The first thought when I saw the page was created is that to move it to userspace, which I did. The creator did further edits to that page, meaning they are aware of the page move; until the issue is fixed, it's best left at the userspace. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't rellay mean for it to be a promotion. I wrote it just for fun and it's 100% free. If anyone wanted access to it, I would be happy to give it to them.
- Just because it's free doesn't invalidate the claim that the article promotes it, or at least very much looks like it does.
- Regarding the source, I'd say that a problem with it is that it is unverifiable. A Google search doesn't give any results. If you could have the (unfinished, or wait until it's finished) course uploaded and available somewhere, I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:55, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with LP. Normally source is something that is published. It is not published yet. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 18:22, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I have decided to delete this article for now. Feel free to edit the page on your user space, but I would kindly request for you to not recreate the mainspace article, until you have some freely accessible source for it. Once you do, I think it would also be for the best if you left creating this article to us, so that we can write it in a more objective manner (see also this part of our Wiki's policy). LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:30, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
Megafugatwelve (and Megafugathirteen) should not be deleted.
I do not know how to add sources to a wiki article, but Megafuga-x is a pretty well known name for x↑↑x. One source (among many) for this fact:
https://sites.google.com/site/pointlesslargenumberstuff/home/l/pglf —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsiCubed2 (talk • contribs)
- This source (and suppose neither do others) doesn't list this explicit number. Unless you point one which mentions Megafugatwelve, this article lacks references. Also worth noting that we have an article for megafuga- prefix. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:08, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Why should that matter? It's a large number that has a name, and the source confirms that this name is the correct one for this number.
- You could argue that since the case of x=12 wasn't specifically mentioned anywhere, then it doesn't meet the "notability" criteria for a main-space article. But is it really less notable then, say, "Trihemoth-Giant-turreted-territethrateron" (a number which even Saibian himself didn't bother to give any kind of description for)? Or numbers by Aarex and Denis and Username5243, which no-one outside our little community knows anything about?
- Don't get me wrong - I'm all for allowing all these numbers in the mainspace of the wiki. As long as they are well defined, have an outside source, and are relevant to googology - why not? I'm simply saying that disallowing megafugatwelve while allowing all these other rnumbers doesn't make much sense.
- (by the way, the previous unsigned comment was me. Forgot to sign it. Sorry) PsiCubed2 (talk) 22:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding of citation rules here is that every number article needs a reference which defines, or at least mentions, the specific number explicitly. Just because the number can be defined in a particular manner is not yet a reason to include it here. This has nothing to do with notability. LittlePeng9 (talk) 06:20, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a citation for your understanding of the citation rules? ;-)
- As far I know, there are no citation rules here - yet. And quite frankly, I find the specific rule you are proposing to be absurd. In what way is megafugatwelve any less "canonical" a number then megafugaseven? Is our a wiki an actual reference for the world of large numbers, or a stamp-collection of the stuff people list on their websites?
- Also, according to this proposed rule, if someone makes a website with nothing but a list of thousands of random number names, all these numbers would suddenly be eligible for the mainspace here. Even if they were all things like "one million three hundred and seventy two thousand two hundred and fifty one" and none of them contained any explanations for why the number is listed. Does this makes sense to you?
- As Sabiis Saibian said a few months ago, this community has to answer some hard questions regarding the purpose of this wiki. It doesn't really matter what these answers are. The important thing is to have a set of consistent guidelines which serve an agreed-upon prupose. PsiCubed2 (talk) 08:22, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
Best Idea for a Notation EverEdit
Please remove the deletion candidate tag from my page "Best Idea for a Notation Ever". I also really don't like how the reason given was just "Seriously?" That is criticism and he claims he put the tag because of his opinion on it. If no one wanted to read that, they really didn't have to. It didn't contain anything disrespectful, and if you don't know, it's a joke. It's a disrespectful way to force your criticism onto me when I am not affecting anyone. Also, I made it as a general article because I was making a page on a notation that was already invented. You need to learn to respect other people's opinions(As long as they aren't affecting you in a morally wrong way), and you guys take things too seriously. Come on, just have fun and crack a harmless joke once in a while, instead of being robots employed by a type over 9000 civilization to develop their language of FOST! 2607:FB90:983D:D1BE:1509:FD7B:F460:1F3A 23:23, August 10, 2017 (UTC)
- This is the Googology Wiki. The purpose of a wiki page is not for you to present your ideas, but instead for people to be informed about what is going on in modern-day Googology. As an alternative, put your ideas on your blog. It just doesn't belong on a Wiki page. Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 19:47, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
He can't. In case you didn't notice, he is an anonymous user, and I'm fairly confident his user account got banned last month. So that was his only choice.
@AFU:: My "Seriously?" was in response to you coming back as a sock puppet. I knew who you are, and I know you got banned. So don't try to get around the ban. It's that simple.
In any case, it seemed Cloudy decided to put this as a subpage to his "Department of bubbly negative numberottles" (which I guess is where funny stuff that was made in main space but shouldn't be there goes). Username5243 (talk) 20:25, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
“This category is exactly the same as the category of factorial numbers.”