Talk:62 (number)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Missouri 62 Kansas 60?
[edit]What is this refering to? was it the score of a sports game? if so, please cite the teams and the specifc game. Blah42b10 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
[edit]In the absence of examples of the number 62 which are uniquely about the number 62 and not just something that could just as easily have been any other number they should not be included in the article. That a country happens to have been assigned the number or that someone happened to have used it in the title of a book has no relevance to the number itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your gutting of the non-mathematical sections of this article are against consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. A bald assertion of violations of WP:TRIVIA does not override that consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Show me this supposed "consensus". Link to a discussion that indicates that every time that any sequence of the digit "6" and the digit "2" standing alone in that order should be included in an article about the number "62" regardless of whether there is any actual significance to that number being chosen versus "72" or "86" or "33" or any other number. Show me where it says that useless information like "somebody used the number 62 in a book title" in the absence of any sourcing that either the book is significant to the number or that the number is significant to the book. Explain to me how the fact that Yamaha used this number as a model number and that a particular saxophonist plays that model number is non-trivial and has any relevance on the number itself. And while you're at it explain why this supposed consensus gives you license to violate the three revert rule with impunity (you are on your 4th revert in under 24 hours) and not bother discussing the valid concerns raised by another editor. I don't know why you've decided to approach this from a perspective of hostility as opposed to one of collaboration. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- In no particular order
- Your removal of sections is a "revert". (I've fallen for that one, too.)
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Criterion for including cultural associations and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in sports (although the "62" is more a cultural association, than sports)
- I didn't restore all of the items you removed from the article.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- In no particular order
- Show me this supposed "consensus". Link to a discussion that indicates that every time that any sequence of the digit "6" and the digit "2" standing alone in that order should be included in an article about the number "62" regardless of whether there is any actual significance to that number being chosen versus "72" or "86" or "33" or any other number. Show me where it says that useless information like "somebody used the number 62 in a book title" in the absence of any sourcing that either the book is significant to the number or that the number is significant to the book. Explain to me how the fact that Yamaha used this number as a model number and that a particular saxophonist plays that model number is non-trivial and has any relevance on the number itself. And while you're at it explain why this supposed consensus gives you license to violate the three revert rule with impunity (you are on your 4th revert in under 24 hours) and not bother discussing the valid concerns raised by another editor. I don't know why you've decided to approach this from a perspective of hostility as opposed to one of collaboration. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of all uses of the number, unless absurdely trivial. Visitors only come to this page to find out about the number. Besides, information about the subject itself is mostly going to be trivial anyway.
It's hard to know where to draw the line, but "...Sigmund Freud had an irrational fear of the number 62..." seems worthwhile and "...The model number of the Yamaha saxophones that Dave Koz plays..." seems way too trivial.
Absurd trivia is bad, gutting is bad. I suggest compromise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm always happy to try to compromise and attempted to open the discussion here but got no response. I am gratified that the other editor has now recognized that at least some of the included items are plainly trivial. There are a couple of others that are equally as trivial so I'm going to go ahead and remove them. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Splendid. If we're flexible on the items in the gray zone, then all that remains are ones that are obviously in or out. Done and done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Bingo names -
[edit]Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)