Category talk:Recursion

Should we merge Category:Recursion with Category:Recursion theory?

Should we merge Category:Recursion with Category:Recursion theory?71.109.149.180 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this categorized into Recursion?

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

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)

Lower the protection?

So, this page is fully protected due to many users adding itself into its category, because, you know, recursion. However, this protection has been in place for FOUR YEARS, and it's full protection—not semi-protection, not extended-confirmed-protection, but full protection—which seems like very much to me. Now, I'm not in favor of vandalism, and I'm certainly not suggesting this so that I can vandalize this page myself, but I would like to know whether there is any particular reason that the admins have went directly to full protection, as opposed to one of the lower protection levels, for the full protection in 2016 is the sole entry in this page's protection log.

Maybe it's time to unprotect this page and see how things go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.214.176 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)