Category talk:Recursion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Should we merge Category:Recursion with Category:Recursion theory?[edit]

Should we merge Category:Recursion with Category:Recursion theory? (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this categorized into Recursion?[edit]

It's an essential tradition. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a tradition here at all. There is a stale joke elsewhere of putting "recursion" in the index of a book with a page number for that page of the index. It's been done a thousand times, and it's completely banal. Doing that sort of thing here just makes us look silly and sophomoric.
Moreover, there's a database report at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Self-categorized_categories to help people remove categories that are members of themselves. The convention at Wikipedia is that categories should not be members of themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I was going to revert that myself but you beat me to it. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 May 2016[edit]

uncat Category:Programming idioms because Programming idiom wasn't sourced and duplicates prog. lang. theory cats. Ushkin N (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Ushkin N (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined. It seems you disagree with the existence of that particular category. Then nominate it for deletion instead of just removing it everywhere. —Ruud 12:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Somewhat true because main page of the Programming idioms wasn't WP:V sourced. I tried to address it in the recent edit, but defintion of the Programming idioms is still not well sourced.
Instead of nominating it, I (almost) made this change according to WP:BEBOLD, but discussion and (more importantly) refs wouldn't harm. Ushkin N (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)