Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 3

message: I was going to random pages when I came across a number page, somewhere early in the 100's.  I idly clicked forward repeatedly, to see how many numbers were done—when I discovered that 130 had no tens template!  Hey, I thought, here's something I could do!  I quickly made a template for the 130s, then proceeded to add it to the first few numbers in the 130s . . . then I noticed something about a WikiProject on the topic.  After reading through the relevant page here, I discovered that in fact, you had decided not to make tens templates for tens above 120.  Oops.
So, first of all, I want to ask why.  Obviously making a tens template for the 53160s is silly, since there are no articles there, but six of the ten numbers from 130 to 139 has a page, so why shouldn't we have a template for the 130s? --Simetrical 05:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making that template. Thank you also for bringing it up here. About a  year ago, it didn't make sense to have a template for the 130s. The situation has changed and you acted in a sensible manner. Thanks. PrimeFan 17:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number organization 

message: If you find the following articles as annoying as I do, please vote at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of postal codes in Austria:
*2000-2099
*2100-2199
*2200-2299
*2300-2399
*2400-2499
*2413 - 2491
*2812 - 2852 
*2500-2599
*2600-2699
*2700-2799
*2800-2899
*7000 - 7099
*7100 - 7199
*7200 - 7223
*7300 - 7399
*7400 - 7499
*7500 - 7599
*8240 - 8293
*8350 - 8399
--Woggly 09:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going postal 

message: I think that the sort key used for Category:Integers should sort the numbers by value (0,1,2,3,…). To do this, I suggest that the sort keys all begin with a space, and then are followed by the following, where # is the number to sort:
Range         	Key
0…9    	E00 #
10…99  	E01 #
100…999	E02 #
etc.          	etc.
Comments? – ABCD 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per comments on the category talk:integers page, the sort key as currently implemented required adding a sort key to only a small set of the articles about integers (maybe 30 out of the nearly 200 articles).  This proposal would require adding a sort key to every article about an integer.  If somebody wants to change this it's fine with me.  Something should be done with negative numbers as well if the current scheme is going to be changed anyway.  FYI, :category:years uses a sort key of (-100 - YEAR) for "negative" years. -- Rick Block 01:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Reads like a lot of work or a project for a bot. Unless someone wants to do it, I wouldn't suggest that one should be required to always do this by hand. Afterall if you want a sorted list, you are likely to find that in an article. -- User:Docu
For the negative numbers, the following (preceded by a space):
Number  	Key
-1      	-E99 9
-2      	-E99 8
-3      	-E99 7
…	…
-10     	-E98 90
-11     	-E98 89
…	…
Also, I am willing to create a bot to update, if this is the consensus. – ABCD 17:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort key 

message: :This section is for moves in general please place specific arguments on the talk page of the page to be moved.
An section like this exists for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. So I have added one here in the hope that requested moves like the current one can be highlighted for those interested in the project and stop random re-naming of pages without the people who monitor this page (and project) being aware of it.  
If this talk page is archived please create a similar section on the new page so that a link to his section from Wikipedia:Requested moves will still work. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on moves

message: There have been a few sporadic discussions of this recently.  
I'd like to see all of the digits at the default artucle/redirect for 0 through 9; and we should rethink how we redirect people to year articles.  The primary reason for leaving years at the default NNNN artielc is to make linking of dates easy.  We can still consider whether we want that to be the article proper, or a redirect from NNNN --> NNNN AD, AD NNNN, or NNNN (year).  +sj + 19:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years and numbers 

message: An anonymous user has nominated the article on the number 9 for deletion. User:Robert Happelberg (who has contributed most of the "In religion" items to the number articles) has already put in a keep vote, but I'm wondering if this even merits any kind of response. Anton Mravcek 20:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 on VFD: is this for real? 

message: Numerao has added lines "In fonts with text figures, numeral N has ascenders/descenders" to the articles on 0 to 9 and put in an example of that numeral in context with differently ascending or descending numbers in the Georgia font. They show up fine on my computer, but I wonder how they might look like for people whose browsers don't have Georgia. Anton Mravcek 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have the Georgia font, but there's no telling how many people might not have it, or any font with text figures for that matter. For the time being, I think we might have to resort to text as graphics. PrimeFan 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fonts with text figures 

message: Template:Quantity and Template:Structure have both been listed for deletion at Templates for deletion. I don't know enough about mathmatical topics to know how coherent the topics are in either template, so I am requesting that some editors with some math knowledge visit TFD and offer their input to the discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Quantity and Template:Structure 

message: The article for this number is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3.14. Uncle G 02:01:33, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
:Thank you for the notification. PrimeFan 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[3.14]] 

message: all the other feilds listings for 1 to 9 and for some popular numbers like 42 need to be cleaned up and sorted real bad. atomic number of molyibdenum was way down the list at 42, and 4 had some crap about "the number that always wins" (whatever that means). Numerao 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  other feidls need to be sorted 

message: The articles on the numbers that are represented by
single digits in the decimal system start out with
a section on "Evolution of the glyph". This is great
information (in fact I'd opened the article on the
number three specifically to find out how the glyph
evolved), but it should be presented differently.
The article is first and foremost about the number
three, as reflected both in its title and in the
announcement "This article discusses the number three."
It goes on to say that "3" is also a glyph, but it
never says that this is the glyph used to
represent the number three in a certain representational
system; it doesn't even refer to that system. Thus, by
starting out with "Evolution of the glyph", as if this
were the glyph for the number three, without
specifying the relationship between the number and this
particular glyph, the article perpetuates the confusion
between numbers and their particular representations
that exists in many minds. This is bad in two respects;
a) I find that many people have difficulty
understanding e.g. the binary system because this
distinction isn't clear to them, and b) this
is very Eurocentric, since the number three is
represented quite differently by many, probably most
people on Earth. So, I'm not suggesting to remove this
information, it's very interesting and this is
certainly the place where one would come to look
for it, but it needs to be introduced as information
about one particular graphical representation of
the number three, and I also tend to think it should
be further along in the article, after the facts
about the number itself. Joriki 10:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the glyph stuff should be moved further down.  In the outline of the template on the project page, information on the glyph belongs with 2. Extramathematical properties, although I guess 1.1 Representation (decimal, Roman, Mayan, hexadecimal, etc.) could be argued for as well. 4pq1injbok 19:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose it be placed after Mathematical Properties, but before any other fields. Anton Mravcek 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm going ahead and moving this section below In mathematics.  I'm also renaming it to The Arabic glyph as a step toward making a clear distinction between the number and its glyph in one particular system, but more should probably be done to this end.  (Furthermore, the section has text figures and 7-segment stuff as well; it's not just evolution.) 4pq1injbok 03:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Teh indians might have a problem with calling it "arabic" glyph. But the alternatives are verbose. Indo-arabic numeral? Indo-euro-arab? Also, the text figures and 7-segment stuff has evolution. Their was a time 3 was ascender in text figs, and their were diffrent version of 0 and 6 in old 7-segment. Numerao 22:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's not a perfect solution to call it the Arabic glyph, but that is the commonest term (in particular Wikipedia's article on these numberals is at Arabic numerals).  As for removing evolution, this title doesn't preclude discussion of the evolution of the glyph; by contrast, there's nothing evolutionary about e.g. the discussion of text figures on 2, so that a section title about evolution wouldn't be as appropriate there.  4pq1injbok 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationship between number and glyph 

message: The article for 4 has a heading "something quaternary." what's that all about? Numerao 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like a step towards, basically, sorting the other fields section (as you suggest needs to be done) by moving significant groups of four into their own section.  The name's not ideal---groups of four or sets of four or something would be better---and it probably should be a subsection of other fields.  4pq1injbok 22:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I volunteer to do the sorting. I will start tomorrow with 1, go at a pace of one per day, go up to 20, then skip over to the "famous" numbers (e.g., 42, 101, etc.) Anton Mravcek 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  something quaternary? 

message: I've added a draft paragraph to the project page on the issue of numbers in currency. One of the issues that needs to be worked out is what information on currency is worth noting in the number articles and which information need only be mentioned at the article on the bill or coin in question.
There is no doubt in my mind that the article on 5 should mention that 5 is a common denomination of currency in many countries. Whether a greater level of detail should be desired or repudiated is an issue that ought now to be discussed.
User:Noe is concerned that the page could be inundated with information on every 5 dollar/pound/peso/mark/yen bill and 5 cent coin there is in the world. PrimeFan 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviet Union used 3 for a denomination? That's precisely the sort of fascinating and unexpected tidbit I enjoy learning. Please add it to the article at your convenience. We still need to draft some guidelines for the more common currency numbers, though. PrimeFan 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I won't; I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable. However, I think I remember from a stay in Kiev in October 1989 that 3 kopec coins were worth more than 3 kopec on the free market as they were relatively rare, and as they were the only coins accepted by pay-phones.--Niels Ø 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The article on 100 mentions that the American $100 bill has Benjamin Franklin on it. This is a fact that is so ingrained in popular culture that "Franklins" has become slang for the denomination. On the other hand, the fact that the British 5 pound note has Queen Elizabeth seems to me to be non-notable. Doesn't all UK currency have Her Majesty on it? Anton Mravcek 23:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, too, but I will have to skim the articles on British currency. As for American currency, the US$100 bill is clearly associated with Benjamin Franklin in popular culture, probably because of hip-hop lyrics. But if you went "Jaywalking," you might be disappointed to find that few Americans know who's on the $20 bill. And don't even ask about the $2 bill. PrimeFan 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Numbers in Currency 

message: May I suggest that for articles like 363 (number) we adapt a policy of converting these into appropriate redirects (to 300 (number) in this case). That will prevent these articles from reappearing, and thus ease the load on WP:VFD. See also discussion on 404, above. -- Egil 13:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest what you like, but some of these pages exist for other reasons.  For example 313 AD has been regularly vandalised, and only the existence of 313 (number) has stopped it being worse.  --Henrygb 23:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So vandals are deciding which articles we want in Wikipedia? I would surely think not. There are high numbers of portability notability that should have an article, in accordance to the project page. My suggestion is with regards to other numbers, that there is a policy of converting articles into redirects instead of deleting them. The project page currently says nothing about what to do (i.e. whether to delete or redirect). -- Egil 06:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If vandals are trying to include a snippet of information on the wrong page (a year), it is reasonable to have a page where such information is included.  My problem is that at the same time you are trying to block both number pages and disambiguation pages.  I don't particularly care which we have, but in my view it is bad to prevent any such pages existing. In any case 300 (number) is far too long, especially with no navigational aids. --Henrygb 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think so, then either change the policy on numbers (done here), or keep the current policy, and add navigation to the 300 page. Just adding a random 313 (number) of no other notability than being the registration plate on Donald Ducks car does not help in this repect. -- Egil 09:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a policy on numbers, just a practice by some people in this project. And I am not sure it is working.  Discussion of removing the contents of 313 (number) (which I watch as an anti-vandalism measure) was not flagged on that page; and you did not move the contents to 300 (number) when you redirected.  1729 (number) is clearly notable. 1984 (number) and 1984 (disambiguation) got in such a mess that they ended up redirecting to each other.  My view is that you are going to have to treat each case on its merits. BTW, Donald Duck's car is not the point I want recorded, though I would not reject it either. --Henrygb 21:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down. Vfd is for deletion. The content of 313 was not deleted. If a redirect is not acceptable, then perhaps it is better that the 313 is deleted instead? And 1984 (disambiguation) is a broken concept IMHO. Either a number is sufficiently notable (according to some criteria defined here) for a "number" article, or it is not. -- Egil 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No - you are right, you did not delete the content, you simply turned it into a redirect to an article where much of the content was not included at all (and the rest was hard to find).  1984 (disambiguation) points to at least eight articles called "1984 (...)".  I don't care whether these are listed on a number page or a disambiguation page, but these sorts of things need to be listed somewhere. --Henrygb 09:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Egil, why did you go ahead with a redirect on 311 (number) without keeping the content to be put in the 300 article or consulting anyone? The 300 article still says that 311 "has its own article". As far as the article goes, it seems particularly notable, having a band named after it, and being antipalindromic. Number articles that already exist shouldn't be removed if they aren't complete stubs, and adding all of the information in the 311 article to 300 would make it at least a page longer. I don't want to start an edit war, but maybe you should wait before implementing policy that is still being debated. Scythe33 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on redirects 

message: I noticed this page sitting on the uncategorized pages listing. It contains one line of information: "9814072356 is 99066 squared, and is the largest square number using the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0 exactly once." Does this make the number notable enough to merit its own page according to the project definition, or should it be folded into another page, such as square numbers? Baryonyx 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth mentioning somewhere, but by itself it doesn't make 9814072356 worth its own page. (If several interesting things could be said about this number, or if it had one extremely remarkable property (odd perfect number, for example) it would merit its own page). But as it stands now, it could merit deletion. PrimeFan 18:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[9814072356]]?

message: A very interesting new article is -0. What would be a good place to put it in List of numbers? PrimeFan 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any obvious place.  Perhaps we should start a new section for numbers peculiar to computer representations, in which NaN and representations of infinity could also go.  4pq1injbok 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative zero 

message: There are two links to negative numbers in 44 (number). If they are supposed to be there, perhaps their meaning could be made clearer. Thanks. Rd232 talk 20:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at 42 (number), they seem to be BC years.  Other articles have the same problem.--Henrygb 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you changed -1447 to 1447 BC in 44 (number), and similarly for the other negatives.  But since there was no year zero I'd expect -1447 to actually be 1448 BC.  4pq1injbok 05:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are confident about it, change it (and similarly on 43 (number).  The NASA page does not seem to make it clear. --Henrygb 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change 43 and 44.  However, most of the numbers pages up to 85 have these negative years, and this should be resolved for sure before (and if) we change them all over to BC.  Also, the few numbers that use BC now should be checked against NASA's page.  4pq1injbok 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  44 (number) 

message: I saw in the edit history for 89 Robert Happleberg's edit referring to "puh-lease" primes. Now I know I'm not the only one who is annoyed by all those substubs the full text of which goes something like this: 
:A type-X prime is a type-X number that is a prime number. The first few type-X primes are 2, 3, ...
So the article on 89, instead of having a link to a wonderfully written article on Fibonacci numbers, had a link to a lame substub on Fibonacci primes. Anton Mravcek 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you on the Fibonacci primes. Fibonacci numbers have been well researched and so have the Fibonacci primes. The same goes for Bell primes. However, I would have to agree with you on most others, like Markov primes, centered decagonal primes, etc. PrimeFan 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Puh-lease" primes 

message: At Talk:List of numbers, User:Georgia guy brought up the issue of whether or not the "Proposed systematic names" section of the List of numbers should be split off into its own article. I haven't yet formulated my own opinion on this, but I did tell Georgia guy I would bring it up here. PrimeFan 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advocate such a move only because List of numbers is already quite long. But I want to think this over a little more before committing to an opinion. Anton Mravcek 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should proposed names get its own article? 

message: * 
Now is your chance to answer the question: Should Wikipedia have redirects for OEIS titles? ☺ Uncle G 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles from another encyclopaedia