Category talk:Recursion

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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Agreed. I was going to revert that myself but you beat me to it. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 May 2016[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lower the protection?[edit]

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)[reply]