Forum:Splitting up some categories

Here's a more permanent discussion place about splitting number size-related categories. The categories I propose to divide is copied from this blog post for convenience (with the numbers updated accordingly):


 * Category:Up-arrow notation level (1,384 pages as of this writing)
 * First divide the pentation level and hexational level numbers to their own categories. We can divide the rest if it's not enough.
 * Category:Tetrational array notation level (2,220 pages as of this writing)
 * Currently smaller than the above category, but will grow as articles for E^ numbers are created. A similar approach might be needed: divide the superdimensional array notation level numbers (\(\omega^{\omega^\omega}\) ~ \(\omega^{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}\)) to their own category, and divide the rest if not enough.
 * Category:Higher array notation level (840 pages as of this writing)
 * Now this is a tough one. BEAF above tetrational arrays has always been controversial about their well-definedness. Therefore, I suggest dividing it to ordinal-based categories. Here's how I think this category should be divided:
 * Category:Epsilon level (\(\varepsilon_0\) ~ \(\zeta_0\))
 * Category:Binary-phi level (\(\zeta_0\) ~ \(\Gamma_0\))
 * Category:Finite-length phi level (\(\Gamma_0\) ~ SVO)
 * Category:Higher computable numbers (SVO and above) (There hasn't been many googolisms beyond SVO so far)
 * In fact, let's merge Category:Legiattic Array Notation Level and Category:Beyond Legiattic Array Notation Level into Category:Higher computable numbers, because the well-definedness of legiattic arrays and beyond is even more controversial.

-- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:13, September 17, 2016 (UTC)