Talk:Preferred number

message: Further elaborating on problems #2 and #3 noted above, the structure is currently a mix of numerical sections and application sections. Since this article is about numbers, I would like to arrange all sections by numeric criteria, that is, whether they are based on powers of 10 or 2. There are still more standards or quasi-standards that are not series of preferred numbers, since they do not repeat with any basis: 
# computer graphics aspect ratios
# retail packaging 
I suggest to remove these, or move them to appropriate articles. 
A borderline case are the following sections: 
# Paper documents, envelopes, and drawing pens
# Photography
Mathematically, sequences such as 1, 2, 4... can indeed be seen as preferred numbers, but they are a degenerate case, the case of just having one single simple number, 1, which reduces them to simple geometric sequences. Just as we do with linear equations in the article on quadratic equations, such degenerate cases can be mentioned here, but they should not have their main home here. Their home should be the geometric sequence article. But the good mathematicians caring for the geometric sequence may not be happy if the pure math there gets contaminated by practical applications. Since that's a borderline case anyway, I am amenable to arguments for them to stay here. — Sebastian 09:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and suggested further cleanup 

message: I like the colorful table at :de:Renard-Serie#Werte and wanted to copy it here, but then I realized that they don't have the R80 series. Adding a whole column for all R80 values would obviously double the length of the table, which would be ugly. However, since the even-numbered values don't change, we could insert a column just for the additional values, like the blue column below. I just don't know what headline to give that column. (I'm using the symbol "\" to denote a complement, but that's probably not well enough understood by most readers.) — Sebastian 09:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I like the table.  To my mind the plain text was more compact and easier to read.  I especially don't like the way the R80 series has been handled, which I think is confusing. SpinningSpark 19:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:    You make some good points, it is less compact now, and it requires some explanation for the "R80 add'l" part. But allow me to say that I'm disappointed that you're only saying this now. I burnt the midnight oil to implement this and only did so after waiting two weeks, which I thought was ample time to provide feedback. You could have saved me a lot of time if you had related your impression sooner. So let's make the best of it: Maybe we can keep both, and fold the table, so that it doesn't take up as much space? Part of what motivated me was that I didn't like about the original tables was their naked look. Maybe we could replace the code formatting with an interlaced table, so that we can keep the concept of different colors for the different series. What do you think? — Sebastian 05:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for not metioning it sooner.  I was dubious about your table when you proposed it, but did not feel strongly enough to post until I saw the effect of the full table in the article.  Going across horizontally might be better, for however many columns seems sensible, then, at the series that will not fit, start going down for the interstitial entries.  Why don't you open an RFC or ask at the Wikiproject for more comments.  If other people like your table then I'll shut up. SpinningSpark 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which Wikiproject? — Sebastian 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The one at the top of the page that says this article belongs to it. SpinningSpark 18:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alerted the WP. — Sebastian 20:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace lists with tables? 

message: The statement on US/Canadian currency is at best confusing, more likely misleading.  Both currencies follow a (1¢)-5¢-10¢-25¢-(50¢)-$1-($2)-$5-$10-$20-$50-$100 progression in current issuance, with some denominations obsolete or rare in either country or both.  The implication of the current text is that $2 should be $2.50 which it is not in either country, although the $2 bill is not commonly used in the U.S. while the $2 coin ("Toonie") is in very common use in Canada.  $2.50 coins and $25 bills have historically existed, but so have many other odd denominations, e.g. $3.
HPA (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the section discussed above has been deleted. I can't say if it was too poor quality or if it simply didn't belong here (or if the deletion was a mistake), but I actually came here looking for information on preferred denominations of legal tender around the World. Is that to be found anywhere on wikipedia or elsewhere?--Nø (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1-2-5 and USD/CAD currency