text:
Talk:OK gesture

Why A-OK ?
Why is the discussion of the "okay gesture" under A-OK?. Perhaps title the article "OK (hand gesture)". There doesn't seem to be any basis for calling the gesture "A-OK" and not simply okay.

A-Ok as an article would be better applied to the astronaut usage of the 60's (see the Shorty Powers discussion below) Feldercarb (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I know that the article's name has long since changed, but I thought I'd clarify past editors' reasons here:

 * When spoken, "OK" means "just OK, neither good nor bad." Consider the expression, "The food was OK," which implies that it wasn't great, but not horrible either.
 * "A-OK" means good, great, terrific, fantastic, etc.

 * The gesture has the connotation of the latter; using the gesture doesn't mean "things are so-so," it means things are "A-OK—all good." Morganfitzp (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Western" or "Some" Countries
The sentence that said the gesture is commonly positive in western countries was too vague. Most people would include southern and eastern Europe as part of "The West" and many would also include Brazil. Setting up an opposition between "The West" and "The Rest" isn't very useful. Inter lingua talk email 02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This has since been amended in the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

certain parts of middle and southern Europe
This sign has no offensive meaning in Spain, nor in southern France or Portugal, AFAIK. Maybe this phrase is just inaccurate. Also, the linked "marica" article has nothing to do with the proposed meaning (faggot). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.163.50.211 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Germany
Sources for my addition (all German): http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/dokument.html?id=40351323&top=SPIEGEL http://www.an-online.de/sixcms/detail.php?template=an_detail&id=376501&_wo=Auto http://www.zorno.de/marketinggalerie/bilder/missverstaendliche-bedeutungen.html There are several cases of drivers who were fined for showing this gesture. Didn't find any particular cases online yet. If necessary I can look more thoroughly. bossel (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on where in Germany you are. In the northern part the meaning is "OK", in Bavaria the meaning is "asshole". --Georg4512 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone with a camera and a hand please replace this image
It was snipped from an spam image cropping the spam link, but it's still a terrible picture (blur/shadow/glare). NTK 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You know, it may not be professional quality, but you could do more than just complain about it. You're not helping anything. --Cheeser1 01:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If I had a hand I would do it. 205.228.104.142 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

excellent?
at least in switzerland, germany, netherland I think it can also mean "excellent" or "perfect" ... what about that?

 * If you have a source, you may add such information. I think it generally indicates "this is okay, good, positive, etc." "Excellent" or "perfect" seem to fall into that general idea. -Cheeser1 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

United Macedonia gesture
How often is this thing used? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty often though, it's like "hey there!". It's mostly used by patriots (and of course, nationalists), never by people with no national consciousness. Do you have to remove everything that has something Macedonian in it? Why don't you just leave it alone? And do you have to call it "ridiculous"?!? That word is offensive dude! This whole article is unsourced, do you see any sources provided for anything?! How do you expect me to prove that we (the Macedonians) use this salutation? We just do it, OK? I agree that the usage in Pirin and Aegean Macedonia SHOULD be sourced, since it's a bit controversial, but the info about its meaning is just fine and doesn't need any sources. The O-shape (the thumb and the index) are the Sun and the other three fingers are the three parts which the Macedonians consider parts of ethnic Macedonia. I'll remove the info about the usage in Greece and Bulgaria, but I don't see anything wrong in the explanation of its meaning. I hope you agree. Ahh... You don't? Why is that?  i Nk u b u ss e ? 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why you don't like the explanation (about the meaning of the fingers). And what do you expect me to do in order to prove that it's used by some ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria as well? i Nk u b u ss e ? 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source is what you need. You can't just write what you think about the use of this symbol. Such extensive explanation/analysis of its use requires a source. --Cheeser1 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I know about the "reliable sources", but what do you think would be reliable enough for this kind of info? The gesture is simply used, and the only possible way for you to believe what it means is to come here and see :) I mean, if you think of anything I can do, please advise me. i Nk u b u ss e ?  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "This is how I see it used" is anecdotal personal experience - not a reliable source (original research, actually). --Cheeser1 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says that "While the gesture is positive in some countries, in certain parts of middle and southern Europe the gesture is considered offensive". Also, "In Japan it can also mean "0" or "money."". Why don't you need original research and reliable sources for those statements?! I really, really don't see the difference! Please explain to me, I can't understand! Why don't you just remove all the info that's unsourced (i.e. the whole article)?! I'll try to find some newspaper articles, but please tell me the difference between the usage in Macedonia and the usage in (e.g.) Japan! i Nk u b u ss e ? 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To make a long story short, you have made questionable contributions in the past, which have raised suspicion in this case. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that the problem? Than I'm supposed to withdraw from Wikipedia whenever I encounter you or any of your buddies? Hmm... i Nk u b u ss e ? 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have some pictures, unfortunately they are all in the form of images, are they still reliable enough? , (Mostly Serbian three-finger salutes, but one A-ok is visible on the right). There are more but I cannot find the links. Frightner 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.246.37 (talk)
 * Pictures aren't usually considered reliable sources, especially when we don't know where they came from or what they're pictures of. Articles (news or academic) are generally what we need. --Cheeser1 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you not see a flag of the Republic of Macedonia in each and every one of the images? The first image is from the BBC website (an article on the anti-Albanian riot in Skopje), the second from Encarta MSN Encyclopedoa and the 3rd is a scan from a newspaper. There you have it, images from news and academics containing the flag of Macedonia, pretty much all the proof you need.
 * These aren't sources about this gesture or its use, and even if they were, you didn't give us a BBC article or an Encarta article (although we tend not to use other encyclopedias as sources). You gave us photobucket. That's not a source. --Cheeser1 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems this picture represents an advertisement of a Macedonian beer brand (see the logo in the upper right corner, it derives from "Скопско пиво" in Macedonian, see article Heineken brands, section about Skopsko pivo), therefore the A-ok sign could be interpreted in quite different direction. The argument appears irrelevant. - Vulgarian 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A decade after the above discussion, I went and searched widely for a reliable source (e.g., an article in a newspaper or magazine) on this gesture as one rallying for a United Macedonia. After many hours, I came up empty-handed. Morganfitzp (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! Just found a credible reference. The United Macedonia Salute is now back in this article. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Shorty Powers
Om page 139 of "Flight, My Life in Mission Control", Chris Kraft asserts that Mercury Public Affairs Officer (PAO) Shorty Powers of NASA invented A-OK in describing how the flight of Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 was progressing. That space flight was the first to put an American astronaut in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.78.190 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Greg Goebel also mentions this here, although he doesn't go so far as to attribute Shorty with inventing the phrase. The quote is (with reference to the successful completion of Shepard's Freedom 7 flight) "FREEDOM 7 reached the top of its arc and reentered the atmosphere, inflicting twelve gees on its passenger. The capsule deployed its parachute and splashed down into the Atlantic, 490 kilometers (304 miles) downrange from the launch site. Shepard was plucked out of the ocean by a Marine Corps helicopter, and FREEDOM 7 was recovered as well. Shorty Powers announced to the public that everything had been "A-OK". Shepard himself had never actually used that particular phrase, but it would become, somewhat to his annoyance, a buzzword of the early years of the space race." Presumably it's military jargon. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * And according to Wordorigins, which at least seems plausible, "the variant A-OK first appeared during NASA’s Mercury program of the 1960s. It may be a combination of A-One with OK. Tom Wolfe in The Right Stuff, however, claims that it was originally used by Shorty Powers, the "Voice of Mercury Control," in radio transmissions because the A sound cut through static better than the O." I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to reorder some of Wordorigin's words - just enough so that they aren't obvious copied - and voila! you've got an "etymology" section. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

underwater diving
in contrast to ... er ... above-water diving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.156.199 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In contrast to ... skydiving, perhaps? :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.48.101 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

666
I don't have any sources right now, but I have heard in multiple places that some people have used this as a "satanic" signal representing the number of the beast, 666. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.43.13 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 * There is absolutely zero evidence for this or any related interpretation. The only sources that exist for this interpretation come from conspiracy websites and from certain evangelical blogs that talk about their interpretations of fatalistic prophecy and each of them in turn reference each other rather than reliable third parties or respected researchers. The evidence for these interpretations however (666, mark of the beast, illuminati, freemason, all-seeing eye, etc...) is completely lacking and highly dubious.  To make matters worse, those who believe these unproven theories often become defensive when you tell them it is an invention and unproven and will then accuse you of being part of the larger conspiracy. The fact is these fanciful interpretations should not be mentioned at all (unless it became widespread and notable) because anyone can make a claim on a webpage but that doesn't make it valid. The web is filled with rumors masquerading as fact, some more popular than others, but most not notable enough to mention on Wikipedia.  StickyWikis (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, the 666 connotation and other "occult" uses are currently in the article with a few citations, including a book from 1887. A valid source refuting these usages would be nice since they are not widely used. We might also compare this reputed meaning to the current debate about the gesture's usage as a white power symbol. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Don't look at my hole"?
Is it merited to mention that in some places among 10-25 year olds (approx), if you make this gesture at a height below your waist and someone looks at the hole, you're "allowed" to punch them on the shoulder?

Also, the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.133.9 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:Reliable sources for guidance.
 * Also, (The Game) which one? (if the mind game, then meh). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Currently this is mentioned in the article as "the circle game" with references and a link to the list of school pranks article. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

American Sign Language
The article currently reads as follows (with no source cited):
 * In American Sign Language, it is the letter F, or the number 9, and when made with the thumb and forefinger parallel to the ground, means asshole.

I know only a bit of ASL, but I think the hand position is different for OK and ASSHOLE, and the hand shape for F in the manual alphabet is different (though similar). Position/orientation as well as hand shape are phonemic in ASL. In any case, a reliable source would be needed. Cnilep (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Profanity in American Sign Language doesn't currently help (it says much the same thing, but without references), but that might be a place to ask. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Restored source for letter F in ASL (letter G in ISL/FSL). Sources abound. Please find and add. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

INDIA; Ganesh and “0”
Since the beginning of Ganesha (or, Ganesh) representation, OK hand gesture has been one of his main attributes. His job is balance of the universe. Think old ideas of elephants balancing the Earth, heavy loads, etc. No matter what strange weather has hit, no matter who died, the circle is whole, the hole is infinite, and radiating fingers are reverberations like waves or ripples ascending from an infinitely rotating circle of energy. Worshipers are calmed by the notion that Ganesh is on watch, the universe is being looked after, everything is turning according to schedule, everything will be fine. Ganesh is the combination of a giddy little boy's body, and a worn elephants head--one tusk broken off like the most experienced of bulls (male elephants). the regeneration symbol, if you will. "Everything is" is his mantra. This is synonymous with American ideas of acceptability in the face of tension. Acquired as a battlefield gesture, it doesn't reflect clockwork, it suggests that things are manageable, "Everything's as good as is necessary in this trench". This scenario is also seen in the iconic dancing Shiva figurine. With many arms radiating out, Shiva doesn’t walk on fire, he dances on it, relishing in the tension of destruction/creation. With his hand he gestures that everything is regenerating infinitely, coming from a hole, and emanating out in spiraling waves of energy. This life/death tension is otherwise noted in archaic icons showing the elephant god riding, sitting or dancing on his impossible mouse transport/companion. The happy tension is also depicted with a downward hand holding death (Ganesha’s own broken tusk) and an upward swung trunk or hand possessing a sweet delicacy; something taken away, something given. If there are other hands presented, like reverberations or avatars, they usually hold axes and such reiterating Ganesha’s position as “remover of obstacles” Prominent front right or left hands will alternate offering the OK gesture, and sometimes this is accompanied with a swastika stained palm reinstating the wheel of perpetual change to really ‘hit the idea home’.

The Arabic acquired numerical symbol for zero cannot be overlooked as a profound concept. While often overlooked as a lesser or diminutive concept in western culture, it is always a part of thee most significant paradoxical duality in the east. In this, dark is not "versus" light-- the two are perpetually entwined; Yin and Yang, Yoni and Lingum, etc. In the case of Ganesh, a large ring might be held with the same hand motioning the OK gesture. Like often misattributed sun worshipping idolatry, the significant aspects are the empty circle and the layers of fingers or rays projecting out from it.

Much confusion in early myth is attributed to purported culturally feeble folk tales, in the way that such creationist myths are viewed as impossibly overlapping and without a resolute beginning. Who made God in Christianity? Where did the dark rivers flow from in Ra’s Egyptian beginning? How did those turtles and elephants get placed under Earth’s globe? Who churned up the universe’s stars from dusty milk to solid buttery balls of existence? Somethingness and Nothingness are equivalent in this methodology. Relating back to Ganesh, it is not that your pangs and pleasures are not momentous and significant, it is just more that they are apart of the same adventure, along which, everything will be not without difficulty, but it will be OK. The zero is at the heart of the OK gesture. Attribute it to the annals of the arse if you please, but that dark hole is just one turn away from a womb, in any physical or metaphysical direction.

Gallant Gland (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There is currently a section on mudra. If there are any missing, provide a reference and they can be added in. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Negative connotation
In the article the sentence "In Chinese number gestures, it is the hand gesture for number three." is placed under the headline "neagative connotation". In do not see any negative with the number gesture. Should it not be neutral? -- 92.228.63.92 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Aside from being uncited, the information is incorrect. The Chinese number gesture for "3" is formed by raising the middle, ring and little finger, without forming a circle with the index finger and thumb, and normally with the palm facing towards the signer. The gesture discussed in this article is widely understood to mean "OK" in China. --106.185.39.151 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I've re-added info on it as a Chinese number gesture, along with references and alternatives. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Used in the Prisoner series with the words "Be seeing you" as a parting gesture, and a reminder that one is always under surveillance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.78.219 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * A "fictional uses" section is apropos for this, so I'm adding it. If anyone knows any other uses beside that of The Prisoner, please add them in or leave a note here. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, User:MattMauler has deleted this section, citing it as "popular references without discussion of significance/impact on culture or anything differentiating it from trivia." Before the section was blanked, it read:

 * "The gesture was given prominence in the 1967 British television series The Prisoner, in which a number of unnamed characters are held captive in a village. Whenever these residents take leave of each other, they do so with the phrase, "Be seeing you," accompanied by the gesture held up in front of their own eye as a reminder that despite any pretenses of freedom, they were all prisoners. The gesture is also used as a greeting in the show without the "be seeing you" phrase. The series' lead actor Patrick McGoohan stated that the show had adopted the gesture from the sign of the fish used by early Christians."

 * Any suggestions as to how one might offer more "discussion of significance/impact on culture or anything differentiating it from trivia" as per MattMauler's suggestion? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

1900 depiction
In this picture, Uncle Sam is doing the gesture... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Nice. Is there a piece of writing about Uncle Sam making that gesture in the image? If so, we can add this to the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've added a cropped version of this into the article as an item of interest...but I still want to know why Uncle Sam is making his OK gesture here. Morganfitzp (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Reorganize Article?
Right now it's it's just random factoids. No organization. Very annoying.

First and foremost: Better name. Your naming an ancient widespread gesture "A-OK" a jargony faddish term from the 1960s? Call it either the more common English label ("OK gesture") or description (Thumb index finger ring)

"AOK" phrase history should be moved to OK-word article.

First section should be history, origin, distribution of its most common meaning in Anglosphere ("OK"). This is English-language encyclopedia so I think its ok to assume thats what most readers see it as. you should start there. you doen't even say when gesture first showed up. See Desmond Morris Gestures.

separate section for all the alternate specialized meanings in Anglosphere like ASL, unicode or scuba diving.

Separate section for worldwide meanings, grouped either by positive/negative, or by culture/region. 173.53.75.228 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Other editors and I have done a lot of this. More to come. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Negative - "I Don't Know"
Not sure how common this is, but at least in Western Australia, making the "A-OK" over your nose doesn't mean "drunk", it's a vulgar way to indicate you have no idea what's being spoken about/going on (poking your nose through the hole = "fuck knows/nose")

 * Looked for a reference on this and couldn't find one. Post a link here if you have it. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A-ok
The sign stems from North American tribes,when hunting in cold weather hands become stiff,the sign was made using the thumb and little finger,it was a silent way to communicate they were still able to draw a bow or grip a spear,this sign was picked up on by interaction between the natives and early trappers and became popular in everyday life and over the years lost its original meaning,run your hand under a cold tap for 10 minutes to simulate long exposure to cold weather then try to touch the two fingers together,certain military units still use the old sign today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.117.166 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Got verifiable sources for this information? A book, magazine article, or documentary? Paste them here and we can add these details to the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to split
Although some Americans may refer to the hand gesture as the "A-OK" sign, it is by no means universal, even in America, where it is most commonly known as simply "OK". Despite several requests for citations, the article gives no reliable evidence that the hand gesture is widely synonymous with the phrase "A-OK" as popularized by the American space program in the 1960s, rather than the more generic "OK". The hand gesture has actually been used to mean "OK" in America since at least the 1860s - a fact which the article should also mention.

I'm going to proceed with splitting, by moving the information about the phrase "A-OK" into the OK article, and renaming this article to "OK (hand gesture)". This is still somewhat American-centric, since there are many different meanings around the world, but since there is no universal name for the gesture, it seems like the best compromise. IamNotU (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * This has been suggested a few times before (in 2008, in 2010, and in 2013, above) but hasn't come to anything, so I've gone ahead and done it.
 * I felt "OK (gesture)" was sufficient disambiguation (unless there a way of gesturing OK with some other body part that I don't know about) so I went with that. I've also put the AOK stuff on its own page; as it had a couple of reliable sources it might well be notable. If not, there's always AfD. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

White power?
I read in an article by a fairly respectable paper that this sign is made by white supremacists. The three fingers make the W(hite) and the circle represents the P(ower). I don't have any way to verify that, but the claim has been levied at all manner of suspected alt-right personalities. To be honest, it seems a little far fetched and moral panic-y. But if it's true, then it might be worth a mention in this article. 209.169.79.203 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 * The article in The Independent claims that "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) characterises the symbol as a 'racist hand sign.'" but the ADL website only seems to mention a "two-handed handsign" so I doubt the claim that this gesture is being used as a white supremacy symbol. BradleyShaw (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's effectively a meme. /pol/ intentionally tried to convince the media that the OK gesture is a sign for white power, even though the sign has no such meaning. It's exactly how the Pepe meme became associated with the alt-right, and people are falling for it, because it gives them a target. It's absolutely silly, because of how well known this symbol is. Next they're probably going to convince everyone that a Thumbs Up symbol is a white supremacist symbol. Here's a 4chan archive of a relevant thread from February. Just because a writer on The Independent was fooled, doesn't make it true. Ragef33 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine this may have some place on this page, but care definitely needs to be taken. It should be made clear just how it originated, that it was basically a manner of trolling by people who wanted to make fun of the Left. I say care needs to be made so that it can be made clear that it isn't and hasn't been used in this way, that the claims to this are based on deliberate fabrications. That said, considering that it's already spreading from big reporters it might not hurt to note it.98.197.193.213 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Even though it's origins as a racist signal were a joke, it has grown in usage significantly, specifically in anti antifa protests. I read somewhere that it originated as an ironic protest against censorship, but now it is used widely and unironically. I agree that care needs to be taken when adding to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.30 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Where is there any proof that it is now being used unironically? Also, why would it being used at anti-antifa ralleys make it racist?

I'd say it would be a smart idea to adjust the final section of this article concerning the 4 Chan hoax meaning of the symbol so as to not render them or their silly shenanigans any undue credence. The ADL itself recognizes that the OK sign, a gesture that's been used worldwide since the ancient times, has not suddenly devolved into some kind of white supremacist hate gesture. I would like to put forward an edit to the article so that it doesn't spread false information (which is currently poorly cited anyways), but references the 4 Chan hoax directly and names it as such. If there are instances where it has actually been used to represent a white power hand gesture, those instances should be referenced, not simply alleged. I may borrow Ragef33's archival reference for the edit (thanks in advance!). Riftcast (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I've revised this section of the article with more information concerning the 4Chan hoax. I would like to find and add more notable references to media outlets who reported on the gesture being a white supremacist hand-sign. If you know of any, please add them to this section. Riftcast (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018

 * Overall I think that this section is WP:UNDUE not because it needs to be cut, but because the other sections need expanding. Links between the gesture and the alt-right are newly fabricated, whereas the gesture has meant "OK" for far longer and appeared as a number of mudras for far longer than that. Our project as editors is to give these legacy sections the due that this play-by-play section has been given in light of recent events. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 * There is an interesting and seemingly well-researched article about the history of the OK sign as a white power symbol on Medium. According to the article, the sign is used by the alt-right, predating the 4chan hoax.  John M Baker (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Because articles on Medium are written by bloggers, they cannot be used as citable sources for Wikipedia articles. But if a blogger provides references in their post, then those might be citable. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(UTC)

medical usage:OK sign for testing anterior interosseous nerve
medical usage:OK sign for testing anterior interosseous nerve, a nerve in forearm supplying deep flexor muscles. Can this be added to the article? -- 15:51, 19 April 2018 103.219.46.162

 * Of course, provided that there are references out there to back it up. Got some? Morganfitzp (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Once again: "Ah! Just found something. Adding new section to the article." Morganfitzp (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Zina Bash
Is this WP:UNDUE? It's an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory from the depths of the internet with major BLP issues, especially when it concerns a Mexican Jewish woman Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Possibly. These are "as-it-happens" additions to this article that may blow up or may blow over. In five years this section might just say, "In the late 2010s bloggers began to spread rumors that the gesture was a white power sign. These rumors appeared in the news a few times and then eventually died out." Or the sign could go the same way as the swastika. Only history, and those who make it, shall reveal. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left the references but rephrased it as the fact that people on the Internet believe this, rather than the ins-and-outs of who she is and the discussion of her "intent". There is space for discussing slanderous crank theories on Wikipedia (see Pizzagate conspiracy theory) but this was written in a way that gave far too much credential to the theory. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left the references but rephrased it as the fact that people on the Internet believe this, rather than the ins-and-outs of who she is and the discussion of her "intent". There is space for discussing slanderous crank theories on Wikipedia (see Pizzagate conspiracy theory) but this was written in a way that gave far too much credential to the theory. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the info about Bash and the Twitter allegations. If we're going to list every newsworthy incident involving the gesturenot that we shouldthen Bash's case seems to have been the first. I've stressed that the allegation was false and that Bash is Jewish and Mexican-American. But those facts alone don't make it WP:UNDUE if multiple mainstream sources have covered it, which they have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Really, it's time for the white power portion of this page to become its own article. Let that be the place where edit warring can happen and this can just be an overview about a simple shape that people make with their hands. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  ∯ WBG converse 16:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK (gesture) → Ring gesture – Using the title "OK (gesture)" presents the purely American/Western Anglospheric view of this gesture being a sign for "OK". Per this source researchers use the term "Ring" for this gesture, and a scholar search seems to verify this as being the common academic term for this gesture Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ∯ WBG converse 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When searching google books too, one can find good sourcing using the term, showing it to be the WP:COMMONNAME (I initially put the move as to Ring (gesture) but I've changed it to Ring gesture as per natural disambiguation and sourcing very often using "Ring gesture", though both are fine with me) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title is obscure. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've never heard or seen this described as anything other than "OK." I'm also not convinced that academic usage of "ring gesture" or multiple mentions on Google books firmly establishes the common name in this case. Grandpallama (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per editors above. In particular on the Google book sources not establishing enough for Ring gesture to be this artice's title. JC7V  -constructive zone  03:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vehement oppose. When it comes to naming things, we explicitly and outrightly prefer Anglospheric terms. Red   Slash  03:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use the "most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)". The most common term in scholarly journals, books, and reference works is "Ring gesture" not "Ok gesture". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Partial oppose. "Ring gesture" could mean making a ring with one hand, or both hands, or even both arms. It could also mean miming the slipping of a ring onto one's finger, so that would be a different article than this one. But if a name more fitting than "OK (gesture)" were to be presented, I'd be open to this article's name changing. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment--This is one of the most stunning cohort of IDONOTLIKEIT arguments, I've seen in any discussion. ∯ WBG converse 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Apologies, ∯ WBG converse 16:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The relisting comment is misleading – most of the "oppose" !votes above are basically on the basis of COMMONNAME, if you actually read them. In any case, this absolutely falls under WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as well – the proposed title is not generally recognizable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's a pathetic mix of to-be-closed RM(s). Completely my fault.Closed ∯ WBG converse 16:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Film
The article should mention that the title of a popular Indian film was this symbol: Super (2010 Indian film). 117.198.120.49 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Awesome! I'll get to work on that soon. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I have added this, as well as a section about corporations that use the gesture/mudra in their logos. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Use by SCUBA divers
When I was taught to dive in 1982 by an internationally certified trainer, we were taught to flash the OK signal very crisply - totally unlike the sloppy photo. The three fingers are to be straight and tight together. If indeed this is now taken by some as a white power sign because the three fingers represent a 'W', that's another reason for executing the sign accurately.Cross Reference (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Cross Reference: Cool. The Wikimedia Commons have many images of divers displaying the sign. Want to pick a better one for use in this article? I agree that the one currently here is pretty blasé. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Remove "hoax" from "White power symbol hoax" subheadline
I would like to suggest that the word "hoax" should be removed or replaced by something else in this subheadline and the following paragraph. It implies that the association of the gesture with white supremacy is a falsehood, which is no longer true. The gesture now represents white supremacy in many contexts and is being used and understood as such, both ironically and unironically. The intentions of those who deliberately associated the gesture with white power are irrelevant for its current status as a symbol. It is not a "hoax" by definition, because the symbolism is real and not a falsehood. 2A02:908:D84:4560:78B6:7A79:2938:2A2B (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)A

 * It originated as an attempt at trolling, and was a hoax then... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it might have been intended to be a hoax by those who deliberately associated the gesture with white power, but it is not. They might not have known, that creating a symbol "as a hoax" is just creating a symbol, since the association with white power becomes reality in the process. Regardless of the origin and semantics, the subheadline should stay this way (with "hoax" removed), because it could be potentially misleading about the current status of the gesture as a symbol for white power otherwise. Using "hoax" in the subheadline could be understood as implying that the association with white power is a falsehood, which is obviously not the case anymore. I don't think I have to elaborate on the potential harm of such a misunderstanding and the paragraph explicitly states that it originated as a trolling gesture already. 2A02:908:D84:4560:184C:8BB:2C44:49BB (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)A

 * You need to know that there's something very, very wrong with your logic.

 * What part do you have trouble understanding? I am sure people would help you out by explaining it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:D81:2C60:7934:CDFB:9D91:6D25 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Beseeingyou.jpg

Unclear involvement of 4chan in usage as a hate symbol
In 2017, users on the message-board site 4chan aimed to convince the media that the OK gesture, or the upside-down version of it, was being used as a white power movement symbol.

I am not sure if this is completely correct. Usage of the okay sign as a hate symbol was already documented by Media Matters two weeks before the cited 4chan post. This could be added to the list of people who are accused of showing the okay sign in support of white-supremacist ideology. But then again, the aforementioned sentence would be wrong, as 4chan users were not trying to convince the media of the OK gesture being a hate symbol, but rather trying to convince the media that they are just making it up. A double bluff, so to speak. Would this constitute original research? If yes, I could only find a post on medium.com as a backup source yet.

"A lot of people mistakenly think that the alt-right use of the gesture originated with this 4chan hoax. But by the time this post was made in February 2017, the OK sign was well established as a far-right meme. The 4chan post is therefore evidence not of the creation of a hoax ex nihilo, but an instance of obfuscation, generating confusion over the origins of a preexisting phenomenon."

--2A04:4540:820D:EF00:77EB:188B:35FF:6171 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another 4chan user. Sigh. No, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ok-symbol-%F0%9F%91%8C#fn12 2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:15E2:FAB5:7B92:CA9C (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect emoji has a completely different meaning in some countries.
Just like in the UK an index and a middle finger with the palm facing front means number 2, but with the palm facing back means a completely different thing, this ok gesture with the palm facing back does not mean ok. In Venezuela, for example, it's an offensive homophobic gesture.

I'm really surprised that the enjosi has been wrong for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.122.15 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this emoji backwards?
Why is the emoji facing backwards? It is wrong and I cannot understand why. As you can see by the wikipedia entry itself, the ok sign is the other way around. with the extended fingers facing the receptor.

Is there an explanation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcongosto (talk • contribs) 10:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Cernovich
i boldly removed Cernovich from the list of white power examples. his article only describes him as a male supremacist (or what i learned in school as "chavinism") so i removed him from the list. i can not find enough material to support removal of the rest of the list. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

May 1, 2017 ADL quote
greetings: asked that i come and defend one of the changes made yesterday. the prose describes a quote made by ADL on May 1, 2017. the ADL said one thing on that date, then later changed their minds and redirected the link to a new quote, made later. here is the material i replaced. notice the date of May 1, 2017 "Has the simple thumb-and-forefinger 'OK' hand gesture become a common white supremacist hand sign? Not quite, but it has become a popular gesture used by people across several segments of the right and far right—including some actual white supremacists—who generally use it to trigger reactions. [...] Only if the gesture occurs in context with other clear indicators of white supremacy can one draw that conclusion."

and here is the material with which i replaced the above text: "Has the simple thumb-and-forefinger “OK” hand gesture become a white supremacist hand sign? Well, no, it hasn’t, but you are likely to hear just the opposite from social media, thanks to the latest hoax from members of notorious website 4chan."

notice the use of an Wayback link, and the use of the accessdate parameter, which i now see wasn't used correctly. Doug Weller claims to have clicked the link and confirmed that i vandalized the article but he apparently did not click the Wayback link i included in order to show exactly what the ADL said on May 1, 2017. the text as i found it was alleged to be from that date, but a quick look at that Wayback link shows they said one thing on May 1, 2017 and changed it to a different statement later. i also notice that Doug Weller did not assume good faith in his edit summary, accusing me of vandalism and claiming, of the quotation, that i seemed to have "made up the new one": (Undid revision 1093803835 by .usarnamechoice never change quotations, I checked and the earlier version is correct, you seem to have made up the new one, if I'm wrong you can demonstrate it on the talk page) i would respectfully ask others to simply assume good faith, click the link, and then compare before casting aspersions. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 * @.usarnamechoiceAnd on your talk page I said it looks like vandalism. I didn’t confirm anything and suggested you explain yourself here, and I would not have done that if I hadn’t thought you might have an explanation. Ironically neither link reflects the current version here. Doug Weller  talk 18:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the thing is, i can clear my talkpage but those edit summaries are rather durable and it's insulting imo. .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s why it’s so important to be as clear as possible if you’re going to change a quote. But you could use the current article to provide a new quote explaining that it’s a third version and the other quotes came from previous versions. Bad that it was possible to find both old ones. Doug Weller  talk 18:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * id rather leave that to someone more experienced than me. i read through the notices and its too controversial and too much of a hassle so i will pass for now, but i did go ahead and add the template for disputed statements and im sure someone will come along to fix it. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * alright, i dont see an actual objection to tthe text, only my poor use of an edit summary. i have restored the correct quote as written by the ADL "on May 1, 2017" and removed the "dubious-discuss" template, along with a nice descriptive edit summary. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We simply cannot use a source that the ADL has deleted from their website and replaced with a new page. By the way, I should have been clear, I meant use an edit summary explaining the situation. We wouldn't do that in the article. I still have to fix another use of the old version. Doug Weller  talk 09:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * i wish you would have stated this from the outset. >:( .usarnamechoice (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @.usarnamechoiceI said "But you could use the current article to provide a new quote". I thought that was clear, I guess it wasn't. Doug Weller  talk 14:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * it would be nice if you pointed me to whatever page states this rule about never using Wayback when a "reliable source" such as the ADL becomes slippery on something like this. .usarnamechoice (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @.usarnamechoice Isn't it obvious that if a website has deleted a page and put up a revised one we shouldn't use it? You can always ask at WP:RSN. Of course, that would allow us to use formally retracted material, perhaps because it was inaccurate. Doug Weller  talk 14:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * no, it isn't obvious to me, especially when the article text was false due to the underhanded way the ADL changed it without a 'formal retraction'. it managed to trick the people who wrote this article into having a falsehood linger on Wikipedia, probably for years. in any event, as expected, this material is far too controversial for me to edit. .usarnamechoice (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @.usarnamechoice underhanded? That's a wild accusation and I suggest your retract it. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

“Face With OK Gesture” (U+1F646 "🙆") emoji
The article includes the "Ok Hand Sign (U+1F44C 👌)" emoji but makes no mention of the "Face With OK Gesture (U+1F646 🙆)" emoji. I'm confused by the latter. Does anyone have a reference for why the unicode committee chose making a circle with the arms as an "OK Gesture"? Does this mean OK in some cultures? Quantum7 20:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:OK gesture


text:
Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers)

Requested move

 * (October 2007)

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

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

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. -- S iva1979 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)

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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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. ) >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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)

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. >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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)

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 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 WikiProject Numbers should go. Uncle G 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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". >Radi a n t <  08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sneerful comments
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)

Redundant - redirect
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. >Radi a n t <  10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for irrational numbers
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)

Splitting by types
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". >Radi a n t <  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. >Radi a n t <  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)

Years
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. >Radi a n t <  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)

Proposal
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. 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 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)

Should this be re-labeled an essay
Propose that this be re-labeled as an essay located at 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)

Move Discussion October 2007
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 Numbers is a currently a redirect (to 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 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, 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 (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)

From WT:N

 * Bduke, what do you think of my assessment about 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)
 * 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)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers
I have proposed that Notability (numbers) be moved to 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)

 * 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)

Restating the problem
Problem: Notability (numbers) is in a bad shape, and is not compatible with Notability.

Options (in order of expected effort):

(1) Do nothing

(2a) Scrap Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), marking it as historic

(2b) Pseudo-scrap Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), marking it as an essay

(2c) Pseudo-scrap Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) by merging to Wikipedia:Notability

(3) Modify Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) to make it compatible with Wikipedia:Notability

(4) Revamp Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) to make it a stand-alone guideline strongly connected to WikiProject Numbers

(1) is not a serious option.

(2a, b & c) should be last resorts.

(3) In my opinion will see the guideline cut down to nearly nothing and will, in due course, lead to (2c), because there is nothing special about number subjects in terms of notability, as defined by WP:N.

(4) was not my idea, but is the one I like. A guideline on whether a new number-subject should have its own article, or be part of a collective series, or whatever is a good idea. This is already what is discussed at WikiProject Numbers. However, that page is a bit too long winded to serve itself as a convenient guideline.

David and Pmanderson have opposed proposals, but they do not usefully indicate how we should move forward, given the problem with the status quo. --SmokeyJoe 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You're very persistent (I like your style of unclosing closed discussions, and dismissing as "not an option" anything you disagree with) but you still have yet to convince me that the purity of our bodily fluids rules and guidelines is more important than the effect those rules have on what we keep and what we don't keep, nor that there is anything broken in what we keep and don't keep that would be fixed by these changes. —David Eppstein 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi David,

 * I think it is pretty fair to unclose a discussion if you don’t consider it closed.

 * If you really think the guideline is just fine as it is, please say so.

 * I have carefully read what you have had to say at WT:N and here, but I am not sure that I understand your position. I considered that my proposal was well in keeping with your position.  That is, “notability” is not really useful as the predominant factor in deciding how to organise articles about numbers.

 * We seemed to disagree about every article needing secondary sources. However, I’d submit that every source providing information about a number is a secondary source.  Also, every number in usage should pass WP:N because it is used in multiple sources.  You mentioned 27 (number).  I agree that submitting 27 to the notability test is not really useful.  However, I think that having a notability sub-guideline existing to allow 27 to pass a modified notability test is also not useful, and is silly.  In the end, I think we are agreeing that the most useful criteria about numbers are not based on sources.  Am I wrong?

 * You were interested in numbers having interesting mathematical properties. I agree.  But this is not a notability notion.  It’s a notion specific to numbers.

 * I am not interested in purity of rules and guidelines, but I dislike the confusing mess of excessive intersecting and conflicting guidelines. Neither am I interested in changing what numbers we keep and don’t keep.  In that respect things are OK.  What’s not OK is that you can’t understand why certain articles exist, get deleted, or are never created by reading this guideline.  --SmokeyJoe 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Joe is not alone on this and the discussion is not closed. This guideline encourages sloppy referencing.  It appears that many oif the numbers articles are correct information, but there is very little sourcing provided.  I think that this leaves us open for POV in the more abstract concepts.  What is wrong with following the standard procedures and provide references to establish notability.  As was discussed above, there are many resources out there.  --Kevin Murray 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that this page has outlasted its usefulnness. The general notability guideline is sufficient to cover this topic. If we have sufficient published reference material, then we can have an article. Insufficient references, no article. Also the parts about whole chapters in a book is outdated and absurd. I think we should move this page to the dustbin as it is unnecessary. Dhaluza (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If Notability were applied to numbers, we'd have many fewer articles. Now, that may be a good thing, but we need some guideline for which numbers are to have articles, which are merged into grouping articles, and which are completely ignored.  I don't see that it has to be a notability guideline, but there needs to be some guideline.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 43 (number) has no references currently listed, and I suspect that it would be very difficult to find references that satisfy the non-triviality clause of WP:N. For instance, it is not listed in David Wells' Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers. Do you propose to delete our article on that number? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK David here are the references:
 * Lehmer, Derrick, List of prime numbers from 1 to 10,006,721, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1914
 * Wells, David, Prime Numbers: The Most Mysterious Figures in Math, Wiley, 2005, ISBN-10: 0471462349
 * Crandall, Richard and Pomerance, Carl, Prime Numbers: A Computational Perspective,  Springer, 2005, ISBN-10: 0387252827

This guideline is just an cloak for lack of effort and free-form opinion writing. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You didn't read the part in my comment about the non-triviality clause, did you? The listing in Lehmer is certainly trivial. Are you sure that the others aren't? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are grasping for straws here David. The triviality issue in the context you imply is not relevant to actual practice in determining inclusion for articles of a serious nature.  On the other hand, much of the text at the article on 43 is pretty trivial and may not meet MOS guidelines etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Triviality or lack thereof is central to the usage of WP:N in deciding AfDs. And it has a technical meaning in that context, concerning how important a part of the work as a whole the subject plays, that is different from the colloquial meaning of "unimportant" or "frivolous" that you seem to be using here. Your lack of understanding of these matters is not giving me great confidence in the usefulness of your contribution to this debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to get pissy David, and try to make it personal. My point is made above and there is no need for further trivial or frivolous debate.  Have a marvelous evening. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Why I removed section "Notability of special functions"
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 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)

Why you can't remove section "Notability of special functions"
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 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  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 edits of the following users have been deleted BEFORE having any consensus, by a single user
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 given reason is not enough
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)

I did not approve this edit
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. J kasd  07:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 99999

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

SNGs and GNG
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)

Notability of OEIS sequences
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 A346306, "Position in A076478] of the binary complement of the n-th word in 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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers)