Talk:1 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers 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.
 
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
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.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Top Importance
 Field: Basics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.


Trivia[edit]

It seems to me that almost everything from "In Science" through to "Historial Years" is basically pointless trivia. Do we really need a list of companies and astronomical objects that have the number "1" in there somewhere? 140.184.40.104 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


If we're going to define the number one, I think we need to cover more. One is the identity in many number systems, not just multiplication over a ring.

I also think Peano's definition of number deserves a mention. And then we're into definitions of number, which is probably a more fruitful article, but one I'm not qualified to write. --Vicki Rosenzweig

hey[edit]

Doesn't all the stuff at the bottom of the list belong at the disambig page? Isn't that what disambig pages are for??? Revolver 09:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, what the heck....[edit]

I enjoyed piling on to the "one is also" list and contributing some trivia, and experienced a twinge of ego deflation when Eloquence deleted them. (And, worse yet, called it a "crap removal example." Crap? Crap? CRAP????!!! My inclusion of the Marvin Hamlisch song entitled One was certainly not crap, it was absolutely on target, scintillatingly clever, incontrovertibly encyclopedic, and I was about to self-nominate it for Brilliant Prose when—but I digress).

Anyway, I stared at the list, considered reverting the pageand thought about what I would actually appreciate finding if I followed a link to an article on One and decided Eloquence was right.

Dpbsmith 23:19, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...But, what the heck, if people think the "one is also" list DOES belong, darned if I'm getting left out of the party. So, I guess I will add those entries to the list. Dpbsmith 16:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for inclusion in "other meanings" section[edit]

If we're going to have a list... we should distinguish between

a) things that actually have something fundamental to do with one-ness or properties of the number one—these are IMHO the legitimate items. If there are any. And,

b) things that are associated with number 1 simply because they are the first of a numbered group of things (e.g. highway route numbers).

The latter should probably be characterized as '"trivia." Dpbsmith 12:01, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In response to (b): can you assume that something was given the number 1 just because it happened to be the first, or was it given the number 1 because it's the most important of the set? Also, be careful to call things "trivia" if your POV is the only thing telling you its trivia. E.g., the Marvin Hammlisch song is trivia to me because I don't care about Broadway musicals, but it would be wrong for me to impose my sense of trivia on others. 141.217.200.131 22:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In the example I gave (highway route numbers), those that are numbered "one" are indeed simply the first, not the most important. Re trivia: perhaps I shouldn't have used that word, but I gave an NPOV definition of what I meant by it. The Marvin Hamlisch song does not illustrate any particular property of the number "one." It is simply a song whose title happens to be "One." It doesn't have a very good claim to be mentioned in an article about "One," any more than Beethoven's Symphony No. 1, Brahms' Symphony No. 1, Mahler's Symphony No. 1, Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 1, or Sibelius' Symphony No. 1, none of which are trivial piece of music, but all of which are trivial examples of the number 1. Dpbsmith 01:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I can see your point about it not being worthwhile to list all the Symphonies No. 1, there are too many of them and probably none of them illustrates oneness (though it reminds me about a particular Symphony No. 0 which is worth mentioning in the article on zero).

Does the Marvin Hamlisch song illustrate any properties of the number one? I don't know, I've probly never heard that song. Is that the song that says "one is the loneliest number"? Whatever song says that illustrates a property of the number one, and is worth including in this article.

As for the highways, 1 is often the most important national, state or local highways, and it might also be the first. For example, Michigan 1 is Woodward Avenue, which is the central north-south street of the metro Detroit area. Those numbers are not always given sequentially, but are instead matched up between properties of the number and properties of the highway, e.g., odd-numbered U.S. interstates are north-south highways. (I don't think state and local highways are worth listing, but national ones should be listed.) 141.217.173.168 16:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Evolution of glyphs[edit]

I think the articles 0 - 9 ought to discuss how the glyph for the numeral in question evolved. In the case of 1, I was about to write in the article that its form has remained very stable through the many permutations by the Hindus and Arabs, but I'm holding off on that until I do a little more reading on the subject. PrimeFan 17:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


A page for the word "one"?[edit]

See discussion towards the end of Talk:List of numbers/Deletion.

Prefixes[edit]

Some of the number articles of Wikipedia have prefixes added to their tables; others don't. What's the problem?? Check to see which do and which don't. 66.245.0.163 20:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pee[edit]

I saw there was no mention of 1 in reference to urinating in the Human Society section, so I added it. Then I saw that there was a reference in "other fields". First, it seems more appropriate for it to be in "human society". Second, I see very little distinction between what goes in "human society and "other fields". The definition in "other fields" is better than the definition I have/had in "human society".

That makes perfect sense. The "Other fields" section has grown haphazardly, and it was overdue for sorting. Anton Mravcek 20:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Natural Numbers[edit]

The second sentence of this article, "It is the natural number following 0 and preceding 2" implies that 0 is a natural number, which it isn't. This should probably say something like "It is the first natural number, preceding 2". --82.5.17.21 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

this is thornier than wheter 1 is prime or not. If you skim the article on natural number, it tells you right off the bat that including 0 is optional. further down it mentions the notations N0 and N* (set of natural num.s with zero & w/o). I'm pretty sure I've seen both of these in math papers. Numerao 17:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the sentence implies anything about 0, and so it should stand as is. 1 is a natural number, and it follows 0, so it's the natural number following 0, and that's all the sentence really says. Cf. this analogous sentence from Glossary of Fencing Terms: "A counter-riposte is the offensive action following the parry of any riposte" -- I hope you'll agree this doesn't imply that a parry is an offensive action.
Furthermore, if we do rewrite this line, I'd rather change "natural number" to "integer" than lose the reference to 0. 4pq1injbok 00:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems best just to use "integer" as you suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.154 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

smth interesting I found out[edit]

Every number that had no other digits in it but "1" can be divided only to prime numbers. For example, 111 can be divided to 37 and to 3, both prime numbers. I tried this with even rather large numbers (1111111) and so far it has worked. Can anyone confirm this? For god's sake, someone must write a post signing script for wiki ASAP. I'm sick of forgetting to write those 4 tildes at the end of each post. CommandoGuard 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're conjecturing, but our Repunit (factors) page should settle the matter. In particular, not every (non-trivial) factor of a repunit must be prime. Indeed any number with more than two prime factors will have nonprime proper factors: so 111111 = 3 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 37 has nonprime factors like 3 · 7 and 11 · 13 · 37, not to mention 111 = 3 · 37 and 1001 = 7 · 11 · 13. Even repunits with a prime number of 1s can have more than two prime factors: 1111111111111 = 53 · 79 · 265371653. 4pq1injbok 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm talking about the most basic level of the dividers. If you try to do the same with twos or threes, or any other number (9999999, for example), the most basic level of the dividers will have non-primes in it (in the very most of cases).
If your referring to divisors, your already wrong about numbers "that have no otehr digit but "1"" Look at 4pq1injbok's example: 111111 is divisible by the primes 3, 7, 11, 13, 37, but also by composites like 21, 33, 77, even the all 1s numbers 111. Numerao 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, I think this talk page is inappropriate for this type of discussion. This page is about talk on improving the page on number 1. Cheers :-) --dionyziz 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One... The Movie[edit]

Maybe I was a bit harsh in calling the link to the One... The Movie a "spam link" in my edit summary, but the point of the "In film" section of the article is to talk about how the integer 1 is used by filmmakers, not to advertise films that are so new the IMDB is "awaiting 5 votes" before posting a user rating. PrimeFan 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries...offense can only be given when it is taken, and the spam comment was clearly over-the-top. Moreover, the film is not broadly available -- it is only currently showing in California -- so the description was meant to be just that (descriptive) and certainly could not even serve as an advertisement (how would anyone see it unless they lived in CA?) even if I had intended to, which I did not. I would also observe that the point of any encyclopedia article is to be both informative and interesting, not just one or the other. Just listing the movies by name is informative, but not at all interesting...especially-so when all the movies' names are basically the same ("One"). The other movies could have descriptions added as well, and thereby delete the current, boring info-without-interest character that this section currently has. --AustinKnight 05:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My one cent on htis issue: ideally their is a breif description explaining why the movie has this number and not that number in the title, and theer is a link to an Wikipedia article about the movie. Numerao 20:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Money[edit]

What are we trying to do with the money section. A dollar bill is often called a one as in "Give me three ones" while a penny is never called a one. --Gbleem 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Right. I guess they're saying "[One is] The denomination in cents..." of the US penny, which is the "one cent piece". Herostratus 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, why only American and Canadian currency. Do we really want to add a notation for every currency? The Australian one dollar coins has kangaroos on it. I can't remember what the one cent coin had. What about New Zealand? British pounds? Are we going to describe all the different sides of the Euros? (I think it would be cool if we did.)RoseWill 11:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should have a table of denominations, countries and portraits, with links respectively to numbers, bank systems and people. Then the articles on numbers like 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, etc., could provide a link to that table. Anton Mravcek 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unus[edit]

Shouldn't Unus/Una be included as the latin word for one? Wikisquared 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

I have added in the religion section over and over again. Please don't revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manatba (talkcontribs).

The problem is that you're not just adding a reference to there being one God in Islam - you're also adding text that (while important to your faith) is not germaine to the topic of the article. Perhaps if you were to only add the first sentence of your text, you might find that it is better received. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As a "guilty" reverter, I wholeheartedly agree with CKatz. Budgiekiller 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

Resembles something that in itself represents a penis?

Come on people. Clear writing. You could also say it resembles a stick, resembles a hot dog resembles an obelisk represents a penis.

Please don't re revert. I mean, an obelisk? For christs sake.Thechosenone021 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, your text was speculative, which was why it was removed. Secondly, I've removed the "obelisk" text altogether, as it is a subjective assessment, and entirely dependant on which typeface you use. --Ckatzchatspy 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


I was simply aiming for compromise in the text. The former, standing edit made an even larger assumption and I reduced the size of it. I don't mind if its removed, or stands as you have it now. The Obelisk thing is just ridiculous, is all i'm saying. ThanksThechosenone021 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the obelisk reference was rather odd, and shouldn't have been there. It was a good call to do something about it. --Ckatzchatspy 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiplicative identity[edit]

Why does Multiplicative identity redirect here? It should be separated as a new article like Additive identity, Additive inverse, and Multiplicative inverse. --Octra Bond 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good question. --:| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

This article is a collection of trivia for the most part. I am not sure what exactly to do about this though, because there aren't precise trivia inclusion guidelines. If I just removed stuff willy-nilly people would argue that I left in X...why not leave in Z? Whatever the case though the article desperately needs a trim.

Also this article has exactly one :) reference and makes many claims that require verification. I suppose that removing unsourced info could be a launching point for cleaning up. I am open to suggestions. —Cronholm144 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the trivium has something interesting about the number 1, that's one thing; but not everything that uses number 1 belongs in this article. Take them out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Unit Fractions[edit]

on the section about Egyptian unit fractions, it says that they express fractions in the form 1/n where n is an integer etc. but its says the exceptions are 2/3 and 3/4 but 3/4 would have been expressed as 1/2 + 1/4 wouldn't it? I don't know how to edit it though, could someone else do it? (if this is correct) Danelius (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Handwriting international[edit]

It would be good, if the article would mention how the number is written in different countries. In the UK & the USA the number is often written just as a straight line, in Germany it is often written like an A without the middle line. In Brazil the number is often written with the low line just on the left side. It would be good, if someone could edit this. I am very new and do not know much about the editing. I don't have any sources, I just know people in those countries who write the number like that. --207.190.127.186 (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree - and also mention how the "7" is not crossed (generally speaking) in the UK and US, but is so in Germany (and if memory serves, in France and in some other western European countries - no data yet to back that up).
The story relating to the numbers of angles in each numeral was taught to me in school in the UK back in the early 60s; do we know for certain that this is a myth, and if so, how far back does it stretch? AncientBrit (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Extra list info[edit]

I'm trying to do a semi-rewrite of the article, at least removing the list and replacing it with prose. As such... I'm going to be moving some of the list content here. —— nixeagleemail me 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Useful but not where it was[edit]

For any number x:

x·1 = 1·x = x (1 is the multiplicative identity)

x/1 = x (see division)

x1 = x, 1x = 1, and for nonzero x, x0 = 1 (see exponentiation)

This just re-iterates that one is the multiplicative identity so moving here instead of having it clutter the page for the time being. —— nixeagleemail me 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: section on history[edit]

A section on the history of the number 1 would be useful. For example, the ancient Greeks didn't consider 1 to be a number, because it wasn't a multiplicity, so the first odd number was 3 -- but they still effectively used 1 in arithmetic.

I mention this because Evenness of zero links here, and it would be good for this article to present more of an explanation. Melchoir (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unity[edit]

A section or paragraph on when unity is used to mean one might be useful; it's something I'm not totally clear on myself. --Jonnty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC).


Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages[edit]

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A new definition of One[edit]

Can we add to the page: Mathematical 1 means the infinite set of calculations equalling 1: e.g. (2-1,3-2,0.999... etc.)Tristan Tondino (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? I mean, it can be made to be true, in a sense, but I don't think any mathematician actually uses it that way. Do you have a WP:RS that uses mathematical numbers that way? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'll look around for something. I would think this should be in set theory somewhere. The side bar on the right does offer representations in glyphs.Tristan Tondino (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this the Primary Topic instead of a dab?[edit]

I need a little help here. Can anyone directly reference either a WP Policy or simply a thorough logical explanation as to why One is a primary topic about the number as opposed to a dab with either a simple definition or link to wiktionary listed at the top? Anything other than "it's already a good article, so we should keep it" please. Thanks! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The purpose for this request concerns a WP policy amendment currently being discussed here. Thank you.

Languages[edit]

Why are there multiple versions of number 1, written in different languages, on the right hand table? Seems to me like a lot of trivia. I could just easily look at the number 1 in different languages on the left hand side in the other wikipedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Hey guys, can we lock this thing? There's a ton of vandalizing on this article already. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Digital Digits[edit]

What about adding digital digits, as one more detail about the number (like its look in different languages you added).

Digital Digits usually come in black (in calculators and clocks, red, sometimes green, and rarely blue). It's basic is the digit 8 (all the digits can be created using it). 1 and 7 sometimes look different. I have no idea who invented this. Does anybody knows? Digital Digits

When using not just digits, but also letters the basic is 8 with + and x in it.

Why no mention of this?[edit]

It's the lonliest number, I mean two can be as bad as one, it is the lonliest number since the number one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.24.49.1 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Galzigler (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are all sorts of variations in fonts, handwriting styles and display styles, including many different ways digits are displayed by LED and LCDs. So there are many different ways of writing the digit '1', I don't see why this one should be highlighted here. It is anyway already covered at Seven-segment display.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Properties of 1[edit]

Maybe in this article we could add a section about the properties of 1, ie it's the identity number of multiplication because 1x = x or that it is the identity number of division like multiplication because x/1 = 1... And also we could add that any number to the power of 1 = the number like 71 = 7 the properties are endless and it would sure help on expanding the article. Any objections? --Geo7777 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a section As a number, and another Mathematics taht this is in already or could go in. Could prune back the sports section, so that only world famous people are in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What, no numerology?[edit]

Even though it's such a fascinating subject? Redge (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources please be bold and add it. Roger (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1 in foreign languages[edit]

In many foreign languages, the word for 1 varies depending on whether you're using it in a sentence (there is one cat) or counting 1, 2, 3... Does Wikipedia talk about this statement anywhere?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First vs. 1st[edit]

Well, first off, there's no mention of "first" in the article at all. I came here (thanks to a disambig at "1st") trying to find out whether "1st" is appropriate to use (vs. "first") in any context other than as an ordinal number. Clearly, using "2nd" as a unit of time is improper, but what about "1st"? For example, what if I had started this off by saying "Well, 1st off, there's no mention of..."? 71.87.23.22 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1^∞ is e[edit]

It is a mathematical property that one to the infinity power equals e. Proof can be found here http://www.vitutor.com/calculus/limits/one_infinity.html Certainly it requires higher mathematics, but is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1 is an indeterminate form. Since log(1) = 0, we have
1 = exp(log(1) × ∞) = exp(0 × ∞).
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

– As per WP:NATURAL and many other reasons. First, all of the proposed titles currently redirect to the article on their respective number. (Nine currently takes you to, of course, 9 (number).) Second, in English it's most common to refer to single-digit numbers by their spelled-out names, not by their glyph/numeral. Third, the current titles all need disambiguation from, say, 3 (which is about the year 3 A.D.). Unlike with numbers, years are virtually never spelled out. I cannot imagine anyone searching for "five" expecting anything but the number 5. If they are, Five (disambiguation) is just a click away. Fourth, style guides all tend to (or is that ("two"?) uniformly suggest spelling them out. I am aware there may have once been a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this issue, but in any case I think it's overruled by WP:COMMONNAME. This message will self-destruct in five, four, three, two, one... Red Slash 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose. For the most part, it doesn't matter where the article is located, but:
  1. WP:COMMONNAME is not policy, and it doesn't "require" the most common name, only a common name.
  2. It would require rewriting a number of bots which check for anomalies on number articles.
  3. You haven't notified WP:WikiProject Numbers.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to the assertions of some editors, consistency is one of the goals of article naming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In this case, WP:NATURAL is not a very compelling argument to warrant a page move. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME also states that "Editors should also consider [WP:CRITERIA] outlined above". One of the rules listed in WP:CRITERIA is Consistency: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". All the articles in Category:Integers use the parenthetical disambiguation format X (number). And as per WP:NCDAB, "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation ... there is no hard rule about which is preferred ... The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)" (emphasis added). In addition, another rule in WP:CRITERIA is Naturalness: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". Although most style guide prefer single-digit numbers spelled out, no evidence has been provided yet that suggests that most users are more likely to enter the word "one" instead of the numeral "1" into the search engine. Thus, I support the status quo and retain the current disambiguation format. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes sense. @76.65.128.222 please let's not have separate articles per glyph. We use the European digits because this is the English language Wikipedia and those are the digits used in that language. Each of these article has an infobox showing the glyphs in other writing systems. It would be good to develop sections about how those numbers are written in other writing systems but I don't think that requires separate articles yet. --Moyogo/ (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is conflating a symbol with a number. We do not conflate the letter-"I" with I (pronoun), but that is exactly what these articles do. Why have separate pages for letter-I and word-I? In English we use "II", "2", "two" to represent the number two, so whatever else, English does not use "2" to solely represent the number. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've seen no evidence the number two is actually normally referred to by the word two. What sources are being used? English literature? Plus is that really the best and most reliable source on numbers? Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Small numbers, whole numbers smaller than ten, should be spelled out. [1]. This is pretty standard style in reliable sources. Some style guides say to spell out numbers less than 100. --B2C 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. No reason to overturn past consensus here. 1 (number) etc. are named consistently with other numbers. Within mathematics and science, WP:COMMONNAME suggests "1" etc. as the title, not "one" etc.. And searching for "one" etc. finds the articles via the redirects, so there's no problem there that needs fixing. -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Articles whose titles are the number words might be useful if the numbers' names are special in any particular way. One interesting thought is that according to Wiktionary, four starts with f because one of the steps it has gone through in becoming what it is is starting with the same sound as five. (Had it not gone through this step, the word would have started with wh; the source is that it comes from a PIE root with kw, which usually yields English wh.) Specifically, go to the Proto-Germanic root "fedwōr". However, the site doesn't reveal why the word four has gone through this step. Perhaps an article titled Four might talk about how the number 4 got its name in English, starting with how the Proto-Indo-European root word was derived. Wiktionary's appendix already reveals information about the PIE numerals for some numbers, including 5, which it says that it is a derivation from the words for fist and finger. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: you should probably also post this at Talk:4_(number) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought RMBot tagged all of 2 through 9, once the request was made properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
        • That had already been done (in this edit). Thank you, though. — |J~Pæst|  09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
          • That's the wrong edit. [2] is the one that added a message about the content. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • No, RMCDbot has absolutely nothing to do with it, why would RMCDbot be concerned with the content of articles? Or how to copy comments from one page to another? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, sorry; Arthur and I did not realize which information you were referring to. — |J~Pæst|  11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I indented to comment to show what it was referring to. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: You forgot 0 (number)Zero. — |J~Pæst|  09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Since that wasn't in the original proposal, and since 0 is a bit of a special case, it should be decided separately. -- 202.124.88.24 (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the reason for this "(number)" is that the year articles are the main articles for each digit. But since there aren't a year 0 in the common (western) calendar system, should it not be just '0' as the number article? Currently, it is a disambiguation page which has 0 (number) and 0 (year) as its two first entries. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is more common as 1 but that is not what is proposed here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I initially though these requests to be a somewhat unusual request until examining other examples wherein glyphs have been converted into text. pi, Omega (and the rest of the Greek alphabet used in math) not to mention most of the numerals linked to in Numeral (linguistics). Seems like an appropriate candidate for WP:NATURAL as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Two differences there are (1) those articles don't form part of a set, the way numbers do (why One but not Thirty-one or One hundred and fifty-three?) and (2) Greek letters are less likely search terms. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well most style manuals (including wikipedia's I might add (MOS:NUMERAL)) call for numbers one through nine, or in the case of the Chicago Manual of Style zero through one hundred, to be spelled out. They are summarized into figures thereafter. In terms of search terms, Omega (spelled out and not as a glyph) gets more page hits than 1 (number), same goes for Infinity (spelled out) so I don't know what basis you are making your argument.[3][4][5]--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Those style manuals only apply to some (non-mathematical and non-data) uses, so I don't see them as relevant. On searching Google, the digits 1, 2, 3, etc. seem to be used significantly more often than the words "one," "two," "three," etc. (even in books that is true for most numbers). And even if you were right, per WP:Title, consistency with all the other numbers is a very powerful reason to keep the status quo. -- 202.124.88.24 (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an article not a mathematical equation or data table so I will respectively disagree as the relevance of the styles guides. Your search is flawed in that for the digits it will pull a number from anywhere, not simply from prose; it would include page numbers, numbers that appears in the middle of a figure (any digit that is more that two numbers), etc. The Ngram also doesn't show any of the digits to be more used than the prose particualrly when the date range is expanded to 2008, so I'm not sure where the "significantly more" conclusion is coming from. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide better figures? Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
All search engine results will likely be fatally flawed in this case because searches aren’t limited to prose.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Ngram clearly shows that for 3, 5, and 9, the single digits are used more than the words, even if you take it to 2008. Perhaps you were misreading the graph. Try this one. And these articles are primarily about mathematical objects, so mathematical usage has some relevance, surely. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics uses digits rather than words, when the numbers themselves are being discussed. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that there is a (very slight) majority of "oppose" votes. The final close will therefore almost certainly be "no consensus, keep it as it is." Which is exactly what would be expected for a naming scheme that arose out of massive debate, a special project (WP:WikiProject Numbers), and a consensus that wasn't just local. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Users will more likely type the number, not their spelling. The disambiguator is taken care of by search prediction. --Article editor (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One - spelling[edit]

Recently, I made an edit adding this: "One is the only number which has its letters in reverse alphabetical order (each letter alphabetically precedes the letter that comes before it)."

It was reverted on the grounds that it "Needs citation and sounds like trivia."

I don't want to add it back in without asking first, as I'm still quite new here and might be unaware of a policy that would mean my edit is not allowed.

Forty contains a similar sentence: "This makes it the only number which, when spelled out in full, has its letters in alphabetical order." (and additionally has no citation for it), so I would assume a converse fact about reverse alphabetical order would be allowed, but I take on the point about the citation.

Would this be a valid link? - http://www.rinkworks.com/words/numbers.shtml

So, should I add back in my fact, and is the above link a valid citation? Bilorv (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still trivia, at least to me. Many words have 'interesting' properties like this but we don't tend to note it in articles. This article is not about the word 'one' but the number 1. It happens to be called 'one' in English, a word that has the property you describe, but that tells the reader nothing about the number.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
For trivia Wikipedia tends to require a better source than some random page on the web. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you can find a book which says it is an interesting property that would probably be sufficient. People paying for something is some sort of proof of interest. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed that from the 40 article. Thanks for pointing it out. Articles like this tend to accumulate cruft so we should always ensure stuff has citations. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Removing both is consistent, and thanks for pointing out WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)