This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

How does Bacon have a finite Erdős number? He has not co-authored any papers with anyone. Ityllux (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't. That addition was vandalism (or extreme confusion). I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a good thought excersise would be to think of the rammifications of if they had either collabberated, Bacon had written a scientific paper or Erdos had been in a film. Almost everyone would have a bacon-erdos number. I know that this is a bit off topic but it is a really good thought excersise. 82.13.152.95 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[No - if Bacon published a paper, it does not give all actors an Erdos-Bacon number... this "thought exercise" leads to nothing significant.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaklychordal (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagan does not have a Bacon number by the criteria of this article. The definition: "the number of links, through roles in films, by which the person is separated from American actor Kevin Bacon." Appearing on TV, not even in a role, does not give a Bacon number. I removed him from the list and present the text here for future reference:

Astronomer Carl Sagan has an Erdős number of 4 (via Steven J. Ostro) and a Bacon number of 2 (Sagan and Bacon having appeared with Johnny Carson on episodes of The Tonight Show), for a total of 6.^[1]

Zaslav (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of modifying the citation in the quotation so it would not produce an error. I agree there should be no connections to Bacon by TV shows. Sagan does have a finite Bacon number through films (documentaries are acceptable). I found a path with a Bacon number of 5. There may be a shorter one. I would appreciate someone looking for a shorter path, as well as opinions as to whether Sagan should be added back to the article if his EBN is 8. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source provided that Kleitman is CREDITED IN THE CAST for a film. Claiming that he appears without evidence that he is credited is meaningless. I could claim that I appeared in all of Bacon's films, but unless I'm in the cast list I don't have a finite Bacon number. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I write random phrases in all-caps will it someone make my idiosyncratic personal views more important than what reliable sources say on the subject? --JBL (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one, including you, has provided a reliable source that he is in the cast list of any film. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is only your (wrong and) idiosyncratic personal view that that is more important than a reliable source explicitly saying what his Bacon number is. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a reliable source that he is credited in a film just like ALL of the other entries in this article. There's nothing special about your opinion that Kleitman should be an exception. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I repeat, again, that what is needed to support the claim that Kleitman has Bacon number 2 is a reliable source that says that Kleitman has Bacon number 2? And that such a source is already present? I can think of no reason to prefer less-explicit sourcing that would require editors to engage in OR or SYNTH. --JBL (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that Kleitman should be a special exception to not have a reliable source that he is credited in a film. Because if you are, I can easily quadruple (or more) the number of entries in this article. In fact, this talk page and archives has examples of people trying to add themselves because they claim to be an "extra" in a film. I could easily find many more. In fact, I think maybe I'll set up a website and claim that I was an extra in a Bacon film and that I wrote an obscure paper with Erdos, giving me an EB number of 2. Who needs evidence. But, of course, that would weaken this article with lots and lots of people adding themselves or their favorite Kleitman equivalent. And it would make this article laughable. It's that kind of nonsense that has caused this article to be nominated for deletion more than once. It's hard enough convincing others that this is a notable topic even with proper sourcing for appearance in a film. 01:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Listen, I only read as far as your first sentence before giving up. You've said the same thing 6 times in 3 difference places and it isn't any more related to WP policy now than it was the first time. --JBL (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As have you. OK, if you don't want to bother reading the details of an opinion other than you're own, you and I are at an impasse because I certainly don't want to waste my time describing my point to someone who doesn't want to spend a minute or two reading it. I'll wait to see if there are other opinions, and if not I think an RfC is in order. Thanks for the discussion, or whatever this has been. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how our sourcing works. It is neither necessary, nor sufficient, to find sources for his casting in a movie. Calculating Erdős-Bacon numbers based on such sources would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. What we need are sources specifically addressing his Erdős-Bacon number. Without such sources, we cannot include him at all. With such sources, we should go by what those sources say, rather than evaluating for ourselves what we think the number really should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: No, routine calculations are not synthesis or original research. So if the connections to Bacon and Erdos are reliably sourced, adding them up is acceptable. So, for example, if the credits for each film sourced make a link to Bacon, the Bacon number can be determined by simple adding. Likewise, if the published papers make a link to Erdos, the Erdos number is similarly determined. Then those those two are added, which is a simple calculation and not original research. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is controversial makes it obvious that this is not the sort of uncontroversial 1+1=2 routine calculation covered by WP:CALC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's very clear that WP:CALC does not apply here -- "adding two numbers" is quite a different activity from what you are proposing, and notice the requirement of consensus from editors about what qualifies. Moreover, your refusal to address even once the actual issue here (namely, the presence or absence of reliable sources that say something about Erdos numbers, Bacon numbers, or E-B numbers) is bizarre verging on disruptive. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be disagreement about how a Bacon number is determined (in this case, appearing in a film as an extra vs. credited in the cast list), but the actual calculation is simple. Yes, this section is evidence for some controversy, but the controversy has nothing to do with the calculations. WP:CALC applies. By the way, I think calling any of this "verging on disruptive" is hyperbolic. It's a disagreement, but no one here has been disruptive. Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because there is disagreement (about how both of these numbers are calculated) that we must rely on reliable sources rather than doing that calculation ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say [1] is a sufficient source for non-contentious material such as the one in question here. Even better, you could cite the movie itself. It might not be easily accessible, but it is perfectly WP:VERIFYable as anyone can watch the movie and see whether Daniel appears or not. Also per WP:PAPERONLY, offline sources as just as acceptable as online ones. The IMDB entry [2] also lists him as receiving "special thanks".
As for WP:CALC, I believe that unless there is a source clearly stating the Erdos-Bacon number of a person, stating that this person "has Erdos-Bacon number X" falls on WP:OR, but "has Erdos-Bacon number of X or less" falls on WP:CALC. This is because determining shortest paths in graphs is insanely harder than determining the length of a particular path between two nodes. These are my five cents. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, you could cite the movie itself. No, definitely not: seeing Kleitman in the background and converting that to the sentence "Daniel Kleitman appears in ..." is an act of interpretation that no WP editor should be doing. Only if Minnie Driver turns around just as Matt Damon is going in for a kiss and says "Hey look, there goes Danny Kleitman" or something could that be legit. --JBL (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: Let me make sure I understand you. Everyone who has "special thanks" in any film that can be linked to Bacon has a Bacon number? That would vastly multiply the number of people with Bacon numbers, including many who are not actors and have never appeared in a film. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JayBeeEll, if the only source were an offline one, I wouldn't really spend time arguing that the content should remain; I might even argue to remove it due to being disputed by other editors. But considering the independent source claiming he appears in the movie + the movie itself + the vague IMDB entry, do you doubt that he participated in the movie? As for whether his participation in the movie is sufficiently significant, I can't really say much, since I'm not familiar with the concept. But if many editors are adding content to this article assuming that any role matters, then that's likely the consensus. In other words, I see very bad eyes the systemic reverts that Sundayclose has been performing. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, neither Walwal20 nor anyone else said anything even vaguely like that.
Walwal20, sorry not to be fully clear: yes, the Erdos number project is absolutely a solid source for this, of exactly the kind that's needed, namely, it explicitly makes the claim about the Bacon number (leaving nothing to SYNTH or OR). I only object to your statement that, in the absence of such a source, "Kleitman was in the movie" could be sourced to the movie itself. (In fact it's easy to find RS that support the (true) claim that DK appeared in GWH as an extra in one scene.) --JBL (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, yes Walwal20 said "anything like that". Read the comment: "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'." And so far, Walwal20 has not responded to my question. Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:IDHT behavior and refusal to engage with the actual issue here is now certainly disruptive. Three editors have clearly expressed their correct view that the ENP is a solid reliable source for this information about Kleitman. Do not remove it again. --JBL (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I would remove it again. I replied to your claim that Walwal20 didn't say "anything like that". And I asked Walwal20 for a reply. Tone down the wild accusations, please. Sundayclose (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, the answer is no, I never said that, and my reply to JBL above elaborates on what my position is. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: That's puzzling. How do you explain this direct quotation from your comment above: "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'." If you weren't saying that it has anything to do with a Bacon number, then why did you put that seemingly random statement on this talk page for Erdos-Bacon number? What does "special thanks" in a film's credits have to do with a Bacon number? Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quote without context is a form of WP:BAITing. The IMDB entry served to strengthen the other two sources I used. I don't intend to continue this discussion, per Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process#No_one_is_obligated_to_answer_you. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: Of course no one is obligated to answer me. No one is ever forced to do anything on Wikipedia. I was just trying to provide you an opportunity to explain the comment "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'", since that comment is unrelated to a Bacon number. But you have decided not to do that, so we can leave it at that if that's your wish. Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose and JayBeeEll,

Considering that this article's content is far from contentious (its importance is also questionable), I propose:

• Keeping any content that is not agreed among ourselves
• Allowing, without discussion, addition of the tags ^{[dubious – discuss]}, ^{[better source needed]}, ^{[citation needed]} to any sentence any of us disagree with

This way no content is lost, and readers are properly advised when a certain statement might be true or not.

Would you guys settle for this?

Humbly, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 05:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a little late to "humbly" plea for compromise after the hostility expressed on the talk page. It first became clear that uncredited roles as an extra in a film became acceptable. Then when I added a couple of those, the standard suddenly changed (likely because I'm the one who made the edits), and the standard became "must have a secondary source" that discusses the Erdos and Bacon number. So in accordance with that I whittled it down to those entries that met that arbitrary criterion. I tried for years to keep the article manageable with everyone trying to add his/her name with no evidence of appearance in a film. Then a few people swoop in and change the standards, and more than once within a few days. We're not changing it again without a clear consensus, and one or two people do not make a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Walwal20, it is entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia to start a discussion about a major change and at the same time make that change in the article before there is any discussion. Please don't do that again. The article stays as it is unless or until a different consensus emerges. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose As you wish. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned this talk page (incl. the archived part) and find that it would be helpful if we summarize the consensus on the criteria for determining that a person can be mentioned on this page, i.e. that their Erdős–Bacon number is defined and finite. After having read the discussion and after having looked at the sources for the current version of the page I suggest:

• The person is notable, i.e. has their own article (no WP:REDLINKS)
• A WP:RS can be explicitly cited for their Erdős Number
• A WP:RS can be explicitly cited for their Bacon Number
• The person's Erdős–Bacon number is the sum of their Erdős and Bacon numbers, per the (straightforward) definition and per WP:CALC, "adding numbers".

Additionally, the whole point of the Erdős–Bacon number is to illustrate the collaboration of the involved individuals. As such, it is permitted to _also_ cite a WP:PRIMARY source co-authored by two persons mentioned here, since a "primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and our journal citation template directly supports the enumeration of the authors. Similarly, I think it should also be permitted to link to a film in which two persons mentioned here (per the above criteria) have co-acted.

I would be interested in the opinion of other involved editors. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree (not entirely anyway), but we have had problems with entries for people who are not officially credited in a film's cast. Sometimes such cases are easily dismissed, such as someone adding their own name to the article based solely on their claim that they were an extra in a film. But what do we do when the person is not in the film credits, or not even identified by IMDb as uncredited, but a reliable source mentions that they were in a film? (Note that IMDb generally is not a reliable source, but their cast lists are considered reliable because they are not user-generated).

Here's another wrinkle in this issue. This article has been nominated for deletion three times because some people consider it silly. Even though obviously the article hasn't been deleted, mention of EBN in bios has been removed on this basis. I personally don't consider it silly even though it's not profound either. It's trivia, but it's very interesting trivia that not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If we get into a big tussle over inclusion criteria, the end result could very well be another deletion nomination and possibly deletion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the concerns about being credited are addressed by requiring a WP:RS to explicitly state the notable person's Bacon number - given that e.g. WP:IMDBREF is then disqualified. In fact, requiring a reliable source for the Bacon number would make it a moot point, how exactly the person of interest was credited as co-acting with someone with a lower Bacon number.

As for earlier deletion requests, I think also having an expressly stated inclusion policy that rules out WP:OR and WP:SYNTH could ensure a quality of this article that would help prevent its nomination for deletion.

Or is the criterium of a reliable source that expressly states the Bacon number too strict? I have admittedly looked more at the Erdos Number, where there are generally accepted sources available. Lklundin (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, WP:IMDBREF is not an issue here because IMDb's cast lists are not user-generated; there is editorial oversight, making it a reliable source for that use. Maybe I don't fully understanding your issue. I interpreted your first message above as a question about whether the Bacon number can be considered verified if the editor cites the appropriate films that make the connection between someone and Bacon. So for example, to link Al Pacino, the citations could be to You Don't Know Jack (film) with Pacino and John Goodman, and then to Beyond All Boundaries with Goodman and Bacon. That's the way citations were done for most entries in this article for many years. The most recent consensus, however, is that simply citing the films is inadequate; there must be a citation to sources that specifically identify the subject's Bacon or Erdos number (e.g., "Al Pacino has a Bacon Number of 2). Sundayclose (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to summarize the consensus (and for the explanation about IMDb's cast lists). It appears that I am in agreement with you (and with the recent consensus), that the source needs to specifically state the Bacon or Erdos number. This is precisely what I am suggesting above. I would like to point out that this is not trivial, since in principle the requirement could be that a source had to specifically specify the person's Erdős–Bacon number (which in my opinion would be overly strict, given the straightforward definition of the EBN and WP:CALC).

As for what is considered a WP:RS on the Erdős- and on the Bacon-number, I guess editors can assume that the sources currently cited in the article are OK, or no? These are the sources (I hope I did not miss any):

• Erdős: [3] (Prof. Jerry Grossman's project, now moved to https://sites.google.com/a/oakland.edu/jerry-grossman-home-page/home/the-erdoes-number-project)
• Bacon: [4] (oracleofbacon.org, listed on the Bacon number page)
• Erdős–Bacon: [5] (erdosbaconsabbath.com apparently defunct, but existing links are archived)

The actual Erdős number article also refers to this tool from the American Mathematical Society:

• Erdős: [6]

This one is based on papers in DBLP so is a WP:RS, and it also handily produces a permanent link to the page on the two co-authors:

• Erdős: [7]

Do any editors have objections to the above formulation of the consensus and what qualifies as a WP:RS for additions to this page? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position, I never objected to linking to Bacon by citing the films, or linking to Erdos by citing the published papers. The current consensus, however, rules out that method by requiring that the source specifically mention the Bacon or Erdos numbers. In that regard, by the way, Oracle of Bacon simply automates determination of the connection to Bacon, which to me is essentially the same as an editor making the connections, just more efficient. Many of the entries that have been deleted used Oracle of Bacon. I'm not sure where that puts the status of Oracle as a reliable source. I'm not as familiar with the AMS tool. In my opinion some of the purists who determined the current consensus went overboard. As I said, I always supported use of citations to films to derive the Bacon number, as well as any other reliable sources that identify the Bacon number. I think basically I'm in agreement with you; connecting to Bacon using Oracle is acceptable. But in my opinion that also means it's acceptable simply to cite the films. Sundayclose (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the "Oracle of Bacon simply automates determination of the connection to Bacon" is actually highly relevant. Imagine a Wikipedian who for a given notable person strings together a sequence of co-actors leading to Kevin Bacon (each step supported by a WP:RS) - arriving at e.g. a Bacon number of 6 (chosen as example from the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"). With movies being so many and having very extensive casts, how would we know that no shorter path from the person to Bacon exists? For this the automatic tool as valuable, since it provides a reference that the path is indeed the shortest. For this reason I think the automatic tool should actually be required. For scientific papers the situation is similar, but maybe to a lesser extent since the typical collaborative paper has rather few co-authors, compared to the typical cast size of a film. I agree with you that for a Bacon number of 1, a WP:RS that simply documents that the notable person and Kevin Bacon were co-actors should make it self-evident that the Bacon number is 1. But formulating such exceptions probably opens a Pandora's box. The same goes for collaboration towards Paul Erdős, in my opinion. So to avoid repeated, lengthy discussions of who can be included I think a reference to a source with the specific distance number will be helpful - even if the source is just an automatic tool that processes information from already an available WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in agreement that Oracle of Bacon is acceptable as a reliable source. However, I would disagree that such automation should be required. The article doesn't require us to indicate the shortest path to Bacon, just a reliably sourced path. Obviously it usually is much easier to do that with Oracle, but I see no reason it should be required. Another possible point of disagreement is that it's possible for a reliable source to indicate the presence of someone in a film (for example, uncredited) when Oracle does not make the connection. That point is something of a slippery slope, however. I think the requirements for what is considered reliable should be stringent. This article has a history people trying to put themselves or a friend in the article with very little evidence of appearance in a film. WP:UGC should be adhered to strictly; there may be other criteria we should use for determining what is a reliable source.

If a new consensus emerges here that Oracle (or similar connection via citing the appropriate films) is acceptable, this essentially would get the article back to where it was for many years. Sundayclose (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see a suggestion for requirements that can lead us to adding a person with a Bacon number 6, if in fact a different use of the same kind of sources can show that the person has a Bacon number of 5. I cannot agree to that. Lklundin (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I think you have a point. A Bacon or Erdos number is the degrees of separation, which is a specific number. And it should be accurate in the article. Under the current consensus, if someone provides a reliable source (other than an automated source) that specifically states the Bacon or Erdos number, that must be accepted unless challenged by a reliably sourced shorter connection. If your suggested requirement for automated connection becomes the new consensus, that would effectively eliminate any source other than the automated sources. All of this hinges on Oracle and AMS websites (or any automated source) being up to date. Oracle updates every couple of weeks, so it's possible that there is a legitimate Bacon number that is not identified at Oracle; I'm not familiar with AMS. Those cases can be determined individually here if necessary.

I believe we are in complete agreement. Now an issue is how do we know if we have consensus? I think we could be challenged if there isn't wider discussion. Do we simply wait for others to weigh in? Do we publicize this, such as notifying frequent editors or relevant Wikiprojects? And then there is the possibility that the article could be nominated for deletion again. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With your latest clarifications, I too believe we are in complete agreement. Would you like to try to modify what I first wrote into something that includes our latest thoughts? I think that could help. Then at some point we could solicit the opinion from other editors who have contributed to this page (and its discussion) on trying to formulate a broader consensus for criteria for addition - a consensus that should ideally remain visible here on the talk page, for future reference. Lastly, regarding deletion requests I see several source citations in the article that clearly seem to establish notability and relevance of this page, so I would not worry about that. Lklundin (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you to state the inclusion criteria. I'll be happy to suggest changes if needed. Sundayclose (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to summarize the consensus for inclusion, based on the de-facto consensus on the page as it currently stands and the points made above:

• 1: The person is notable, i.e. has their own article (no WP:REDLINKS)
• 2A: A WP:RS can be explicitly cited for their Erdős–Bacon Number, e.g. Danica McKellar or Richard Feynman, or
• 2B: A WP:RS can be explicitly cited for their Erdős number and a WP:RS can be explicitly cited for their Bacon Number. The person's Erdős–Bacon number is the sum of their Erdős and Bacon numbers, per the (straightforward) definition and per WP:CALC, "adding numbers". Example: Nicholas Metropolis.
• 3: In the context of this article, reliable sources include:
  • archived pages of the (now-defunct) erdosbaconsabbath.com,
  • Oakland University professor Jerry Grossman's Erdős project, formerly maintained at https://wwwp.oakland.edu/enp/related/ and as of March 2021 hosted at https://sites.google.com/a/oakland.edu/jerry-grossman-home-page/home/the-erdoes-number-project,
  • the oracleofbacon.org,
  • this page https://liquidnarrative.eae.utah.edu/erdos-bacon/ from University_of_Utah_School_of_Computing#Recent_history (although it cites this article),
  • the American Mathematical Society's Erdős number calculator for every mathematical author listed in the Mathematical Reviews catalogue https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/freeTools.html?version=2,
  • the Erdős number calculator https://www.csauthors.net/distance/ where [m]ost of the data is coming from the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography and the rest is coming from CsAuthors.net own database and
  • standard sources such as USA Today.
• 4: Exceptions to the above exist, e.g. Colin Firth for whom no source is explicitly cited for his Erdős number. Instead a WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY source is cited for his co-authorship with someone with an Erdős number (of 5).
• 5: Wikipedia remains a work in progress and this consensus may evolve over time. As such specific points from the current consensus is high-lighted:
  • A person does not in general have their Erdős number defined merely by co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper with someone who has an Erdős number, since there is a non-trivial bar for what is considered sufficient collaboration in the context of the Erdős number. As such, an explicit calculator is the preferred source. See also Talk:List_of_people_by_Erdős_number.
  • A person does not in general have their Bacon number defined merely by appearing on camera with someone who has a Bacon number. For example, per definition television works are excluded in the context of the Bacon number.
  • As such, attempts by editors to themselves derive an Erdős or Bacon number by citing a sequence of sources is generally considered WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.
  • A person may have a Bacon number from acting as themselves, e.g. Stephen Hawking.
  • When someone who has an Erdős number collaborates (in a manner that meets the bar) with someone else, then that new person's Erdős number is defined. However, since it is non-trivial to prove that this collaboration distance to Erdős is indeed the shortest, a dedicated calculator for the Erdős number is preferable.
  • Ditto for the Bacon number. While a specific calculator is preferred, it is noted per WP:IMDBREF that IMDB's cast lists are not user-generated; there is editorial oversight, making it a reliable source for that use.

Lklundin (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: @Walwal20: @JayBeeEll: @David Eppstein: I have tried to summarize what appears to be the current consensus on inclusion of a person on this page, taking into account also some points made in the preceding discussion above. Since you have all made recent contributions to this article and its talk page, your comments on this summary (whether to accept, refine, change, replace or something else) would be helpful. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If someone has no Wikipedia page of their own but still has a low Erdös-Bacon number such as 6, shouldn't they still be included in the list for consistency reasons? Mensch72 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistency" is a poor reason given that the list is already consistent (in that it is limited to people who are the subject of a Wikipedia biography). What is the quality of the sourcing for the mystery person you want to include? JBL (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "mystery" is meant so say. To answer the question: The quality of the sourcing is MathSciNet and IMDB. The person is me, Jobst Heitzig, a complex network scientist and actor. Erdös number 2 via Marcel Erné according to https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/freeTools.html?version=2, Bacon number 4 via Dieter-Rita Scholl, Glenn Close, Marisa Tomei according to IMDB. Is there any convincing justification to link the relevance of a person regarding this table here to their perceived relevance for anything outside this table? If so, wouldn't that criterion be off-topic? And what would then be the purpose of the list anyway? Making "the rich get richer"? Mensch72 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you people are discussing here today anyway, I'd like to get back to my question and hope you will reply:

"Is there any convincing justification to link the relevance of a person regarding this table here to their perceived relevance for anything outside this table? If so, wouldn't that criterion be off-topic? And what would then be the purpose of the list anyway?"

Note that "having a Wikipedia page" is not part of the definition of having an EB number. Hence presenting a table claiming to list the people with the lowest EB number and thereby restricting that table in reality to a rather small subgroup of people using some off-topic random criterion is at least misleading and probably discriminatory. Mensch72 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mensch72: The article does not have any claim about the "lowest EBN number". I'm not sure what you're asking? Sundayclose (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK you're right, the article does not explicitly state that the table contains the lowest ones. Actually, the table does not even have any caption at all. So what do you think the reader will perceive this table as presenting if not those people with the lowest such number?

I'd also still like an answer to my earlier question about the justification of using an additional off-topic criterion (like "having a Wikipedia page") in compiling such a table.

Mensch72 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mensch72: Personally I think anyone who is discussed in the article can be included in the table. If someone challenges that they would need consensus. Most list articles require an entry to have a Wikipedia page, but this is not a list article. So technically there's nothing preventing adding someone without an article. I personally think everyone should have an article, and I suspect most people who have a finite EBN have an article. Remember, we can't include anyone who is not reliably sourced as appearing in a film (no extras or crew members; no TV shows but TV movies are OK), and usually that is done with Oracle of Bacon. Are you thinking about someone in particular? Sundayclose (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the person is myself, see above in this thread.

Maybe a first step to improve the article would be to add a caption that clarifies that the table is not meant to list the people with the smallest EB number but only a selection of people who seem important for reasons beyond their EB number.

May I ask why you suspect most people who have a finite EBN have a Wikipedia article? Mensch72 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mensch72: Jobst Heitzig cannot be connected to Bacon using oracleofbacon.org, which will always identify a connection if the person appears in and is credited in a film with someone who has a finite Bacon number. Why do you think you have a Bacon number? If you look through this talk page and the archives you'll see many examples of people who tried to add themselves or someone they know, usually without any evidence of appearing in and being credited in a film. Sometimes they claim to have a Bacon number because they were in the crew, or were thanked in the credits but did not appear in the film, or they were in a scene with a group of people but are not credited, or they were in a TV show but not a TV or theatrical movie. Sundayclose (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about oracleofbacon.org. As I said before in this thread, I use IMDB (and Wikipedia). The 4-step link is:

Jobst Heitzig

-> Muß ein Herrenwäscheverkäufer homosexuell sein? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6164616/)

-> Dieter Rita Scholl

-> Meeting Venus (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102428/)

-> Glenn Close

-> The Paper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paper_(film))

-> Marisa Tomei

-> Loverboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loverboy_(2005_film))

-> Kevin Bacon.

What makes you claim that oracleofbacon.org "will always identify a connection if the person appears in and is credited in a film with someone who has a finite Bacon number." And why are you mentioning "many examples of people who tried to add themselves or someone they know, usually without any evidence of appearing in and being credited in a film"? Did you want to suggest that I was such a person? If so, why did you not say so directly? Mensch72 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Sundayclose, I'd really like to get an answer because I feel a little disrespected by what you wrote. Please clarify what you meant. Mensch72 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From which of my comments did you jump to the conclusion that you were "a little disrespected"? Sundayclose (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was disrespected but that I felt disrespected. From the sentence "If you look through this talk page and the archives you'll see many examples of people who tried to add themselves or someone they know, usually without any evidence of appearing in and being credited in a film."

What did you want to suggest with that additional sentence, following your already clear question "Why do you think you have a Bacon number?" Mensch72 (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can take my comment literally (as I assumed anyone would): "If you look through this talk page and the archives you'll see many examples of people who tried to add themselves or someone they know, usually without any evidence of appearing in and being credited in a film." Is there something about that comment that you don't understand? Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that comment is literally perfectly understandable. So if it was not your intention to suggest that I might be such a person like the "many people", then what else was the reason for you to write that sentence? Mensch72 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it because it's true and has been a problem. Do you deny that? Sundayclose (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying or claiming anything regarding that question. I see it is a problem, but I don't see how it relates to this thread since I am obviously not such a person, as you can see from the evidence given. Mensch72 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you focus on content instead of personalizing other editors' comments about content. I've made this or similar comment numerous times in numerous threads, and you and I are far from the only people in the discussion in this section of the talk page. I don't see this discussion between you and me accomplishing anything, so I'm finished here. If you have a problem with any of my comments this is not the venue to bring them up. Take it to my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment about the interpretation of your sentence.

Refocussing on content, I was asking earlier what makes you claim that oracleofbacon.org "will always identify a connection if the person appears in and is credited in a film with someone who has a finite Bacon number." This is apparently not the case as the IMDB example shows. Mensch72 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking Joe Penna and noticed a problem with csauthors: they include ArXiv preprints which have not yet been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. I believe it still should be a RS on the condition that one must manually check whether there are preprints not properly published in the chain before adding. ZbMATH Open's author tool at https://zbmath.org/authors seems to lack this disadvantage. Ain92 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New comments go at the bottom of the page. Don"t place them in the middle of a discussion. EBN is based on published papers. There's no guarantee that a paper that hasn't been reviewed and accepted will be published. Wait for publication. Sundayclose (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They only go at the bottom if they are not replying to a certain comment, in which case they are appended to form a thread (both by the traditional formatting practice and the modern discussion tool, which I used to write the 15:03 comment: you hit the "reply" and it places it here) above the older non-replies below. As for the preprint inclusion to the page, I have no disagreement with you, just pointed out a problem with a source. Ain92 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I was checking Terry Pratchett and noticed that both possible sources for his Bacon number are problematic, using television films in their chains: Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic in the erdosbaconsabbath.com and Terry Pratchett's Hogfather in the Oracle of Bacon. Also, in the latter case Pratchett apparently hasn't played himself, has he? What do we do with that? Ain92 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. It's not clear which comment you are replying to, so new comments go at the bottom. If you wish to respond to a particular editor, use the ping feature. And stop using bullets instead of colons to indent. Regarding Pratchett, TV shows are not used for EBN. TV movies can be used. And again, Erdos-Bacon-Sabbath is not an acceptable source. If you want to use it as a source, get consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]