Category talk:Knots

Start clss

There was no category for this yet, I started one that is far from complete. The List of knots has a lot of stuff that should probably be here. —siroχo 01:16, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

add a reference to square knot

I could not figure out how to make the following change to the page:

Add "square knot" to the list, and refer people to "reef knot". Many people do not know a square knot is a reef knot.

Andrew

I did it. It turns out you can add a category to a redirect page. It made sense to me in this case because "square knot" is a much better known name. Dpv 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Knot sub-category organization

It looks like some knot sub-categorization is starting; this is a good thing. Here are some initial ideas about categorization schemes for more the complex sub-categories. Discussing these first might save some headaches down the line. Feel free to add other sub-categories for consideration. --Dfred 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Loop knots

Seems like there are three basic classes of loop knots: Fixed, Adjustable, and Running. (others I'm forgetting?) There are several options here, not limited to:

1. Ignore these distinctions and simply add all loop knots to "Loop knots"
2. The three sub-classes of loop knots each made a sub-category of Knots, with each loop knot is only added to one of these.
3. All loop knots get added to "Loop knots" as well as their specific sub-class category, as in 2.
4. Three sub-categories made under "Loop knots", itself a child of Knots, this would be seemingly reasonably compatible with 2 if I understand categories correctly. But perhaps adding category depth where not really needed...
5. Need to read up on categories, but could the sub-categories of Loop knots also be sub-categories of Knots? (Sort of combining 2 & 4)

Other ideas? Better/more canonical names for sub-classes? Is one of these ideas more compatible with Wikipedia than the others? --Dfred 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that number 2 would clutter the category, and numbers 3&5 are (I believe) against wikipedia policy/usage. Number 4 seems to me to be the best solution as long as someone is willing to do the work. Dddstone 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I)- Loop Knots

 1)- Standing Loop Knots
     A)- Loop Knots Proper
     B)- Bight Loop Knots
     C)- Bowline Loop Knots
     D)- Eye Splices
     E)- Forked and Splayed Loop Knots
     F)- Holdbacks
     G)- Slings
      I)- Strop and Web Loop Knots

II)- Running Loop Knots

  1)- Running Loop Knots Proper
  2)- Nooses,Snares,Lariats,Lassos,Hondas,and their ilk
  3)- Ties  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Mayer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC) 

Braid/Plait/Sinnet/Sennit

These terms are often conflated with one another. Different sources give different definitions of specifically what each means and which may or may not be equivalent to which. Possible regional or international differences may also exist. The structure of the disambiguation/definitions of the articles bearing these names should be mutually compatible with whatever is decided here for categorization purposes. --Dfred 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical knots?

I found this category, since one of the knots in the mathematical field Knot theory, the Trefoil knot, belonged to this category instead of to Category:Knot theory. On the other hand, some other "mathematical knots", like the Figure-eight knot (mathematics), belonged only to that category but not to this one.

I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. (After all, the knot theory in some sense started from the concrete knots, and indeed is applicable for them. I guess you could go through some of the articles in this category, and add information on the respective the knot-theoretical invariants, if you wish. However, this doesn't work for knots involving more than a single rope.)

One possibility might be to create a category with the name mathematical loops mathematical knots or something similar, and make this to a subcategory both of this and of that category.-JoergenB (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd avoid inventing new terminology, even if the meaning is pretty obvious. I think Category:Knot theory should probably be a subcat of this one, as the place where knots and mathematics intersect. — Gwalla | Talk 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is some sense in that, but knot theory contains a lot more than enumerations of knot types. I'm not sure if Category:Knot theory should just be included as a subcategory, or if there should be an explanatory Also see type note: "For a mathematical analysis of the properties of knots, see Knot theory", directly under the {{main}}.

I'm sorry about my error supra. I just noticed that the term I intended actually is not quite new; cf. List of mathematical knots and links. However, I think that preferrably the "non-mathematicians knot people" should decide this. If you think that the simple solution to include the whole category Knot theory as an ordinary subcategory of Category:Knots is OK, and that it is not a too "strange bird" in the context, then so be it. JoergenB (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have this cat on my watchlist is that once upon a time category:knots was a subcat of category:knot theory. That was just wrong and had some bizarre consequences, like articles on particular real-world knots showing up in the daily activity report for mathematics articles. The reverse inclusion, on the other hand, would not be horrific — I don't see any great advantage to it, but it also doesn't seem like it would really hurt anything. Count me as a very weak oppose, I guess — if I were doing this all myself, I wouldn't put it there, but if others want to I won't squawk. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another, even simpler, solution could be just to include List of mathematical knots and links as an item in Category:Knots. I still personally prefer creating a small subcategory for some or all the items on this list, and including that and only that as a subcategory of both categories Knots and Knot theory, though. Trovatore, does this go against the spirit of avoiding too many category levels in the mathematical categories?-JoergenB (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)