# Googology Wiki

This wiki's URL has been migrated to the primary fandom.com domain.Read more here

11,358
pages

This is a guideline on how to contribute to this wiki. See also Googology Wiki:Policy for precise rules in this wiki.

## Formatting

In order to make housekeeping easier, we recommend users to follow a common format:

### How to decide a title of an article

When we create an article, the title should be capitalised in a standard way unless there are specific reasons. For example, the title of the article on Graham's number should not be graham's number, Graham's Number, gRAHAM's nUMBER, GRAHAM'S NUMBER!!!, The largest number in the world, and so on. On the other hand, if a creator specifies an irregular capitalisation, then we can respect it by clarifying the reason at a section in the article, the summary box, or the talk page.

### How to mention to a number

When we create an article on a number whose name is abc for instance, we should mention it as "abc" instead of "the abc". Of course, when it appears at the beginning of a sentence, we should capitalise it as "Abc". An exception to this could occur if the number's name itself breaks this guideline, such as The gathering, or the number has an unusual name, such as   .

### How to display a mathematical formula

When we use mathematical formulae, there are three ways: Using MathJax ($$10^{100}$$ for $$10^{100}$$), $tag ([itex]10^{100}$ for ), and standard HTML (e.g. sub/sup) tags (10<sup>100</sup> for 10100). MathJax is a standard method for writing mathematical formulae in Googology Wiki. To avoid edit war, do not replace MathJax equation to [itex] tag. On the other hand, [itex] tag can be, and is recommended to be, replaced to MathJax.

## Citation

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#Citations

Please read the main article carefully, because many users misunderstand what a source means.

### Why is my article marked as a candidate of deletion?

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#Original work (READ THIS !)

First of all, an article in the main space is not "your article" or possessed by someone else. It is not a personal material, but is a place to collect reliable sources. Therefore if an article has no valid source of the notion in the title, it will be marked as a candidate of deletion.

### Is it a valid source?

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#What can be a source?

We sometimes receive this kind of questions. The answer is: "It depends on what information you want to cite." If you want to write an information X, then you need to refer to the first source or a peer-reviewed source of X.

One typical mistake is to refer to a famous reliable website Y as a source of X even when X is not written in Y. Then we will immediately revert the edit, and you will ask "WHY REVERTED?? Y is well-known and reliable! Indeed, there are many articles referring to Y as a source! If Y is not a valid source, then you should delete all of them!" Unfortunately, even if Y is reliable, Y cannot be a source of information which is not written in Y...

### Is my blog post a valid source of my number?

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#Blog posts

Usually, no. We allow a blog post to be a valid source of a number only when it passes the voting system.

### Is my website a valid source of my number?

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#Personal website

Of course, as long as your website actually refers to your number. But please be careful if your website is not peer-reviewed. Recently, many users create articles on their own numbers with references to their own websites. However, since they are usually not checked by other experts, they might include massive errors. For example, your numbers might be ill-defined, or your theories might be contradicting.

In that case, other users will add to the article information about the errors. Please be careful that you cannot freely remove the negative information, even if you are the author of the webpage, the creator of the number, and the one who wrote the article first. This wiki is not your personal space to exhibit your works, but is a public space to collect googological information such as the name, the size, and the history of large numbers. Therefore even if you dislike descriptions which verify the incorrectness of your descriptions in your website, you do not have a priority. You are just one of users in this wiki, and should not persist your preference. If you want to remove descriptions from an article, you can propose the removal at the corresponding talk page, instead of deciding to destroy the article.

### Why do we need retrieval date?

Main article: Googology Wiki:Policy#Personal website

Usually, a personal website is not peer-reviewed, and hence might include massive errors. Therefore when you refer to your website as a source in an article, then other users might add to the article a description that your numbers are much smaller than what you expect your numbers to be, or even are ill-defined. After then, you might remove the negative information and silently update the source in order to treat as if the problems did not exist from the beginning. It frequently occurs in this wiki, and hence we should precisely distinguish "the source before the update" from "the source after the update". For this purpose, we should clarifying the retrieval date. In addition, it is good to use a web archive in order to make the source accessible.

For example, if you refer to a description X in your website Y accessed at a time Z, the precise citation should add right after X a link to "Y (retrieved at Z)" or something like that rather than less informative "Y". If you refer to another description X' in the same website Y at another time Z' but not in Y accessed at Z, then you should add right after X' a link to "Y (retrieved at Z')" instead of "Y (retrieved at Z)", because the source "Y (retrieved at Z)" does not include "X'". A webpage can be a valid source of X' only when it actually includes X'. If X is contradicting X', then you can write

The creator first wrote X in the original source,(link to "Y (retrieved at Z)") but later replaced the description by X'.(link to "Y (retrieved at Z')").

or something like that. In that way, you can clarify the newest information without removing the old information.

For example, if you want to update the description in the article because you updated definitions in your website in order to correct errors, you should not remove the original description without discussing at the corresponding talk page, because this wiki neutrally collects googological information including the updating history. Instead, you can add the updated description together with the new source and the corresponding retrieval date. If you simply replace the description, then it can be a fake, because the new description was not written in the cited source with the clarified retrieval date, even if it is written in the same webpage in the current version. Therefore please just add the new description, instead of replacing or removing the old correct information. If the information is not applicable to the current definition, you can simply write so instead of removing it.