[WikiEN-l] Trivial categories

[Ray Saintonge]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>  
>
>>geni wrote
>>    
>>
>>>On 10/14/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Should we have a category which says that the subject of the
>>>>article (a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician
>>>>who collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
>>>> with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian 
>>>>mathematician Paul Erd?s?
>>>>
>>>>Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>False the existance of a category does not mean that we should have
>>> articles on everything that could fall within that category.
>>>      
>>>
>>That's a misapprehension of what this is about.
>>
>>I'd have voted for deletion myself. This is about as pop-cultural as
>>mathmos get (I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced
>>with the Prince of Wales).
>>    
>>
>Not so. It's a lot like actor's Bacon numbers: Meeting someone is one
>thing, but co-author a mathematical paper or acting alongside them is
>slightly less trivial than that.
>
It's important to put the emphasis on the word "slightly" in that last 
comment.  I have a priestly cousin who likes to hand out pictures of 
himself shaking hands with the late pope.  He gave me one of those 
pictures.  This would give me a degree of separation from JP2 of 2.   
Speaking as a person who usually favours inclusionist policies, could we 
consolidate these templates into one about degrees of triviality?

Ec