Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
This page 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.
 

Contents

Numbers in Fiction and stuff[edit]

"In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles. Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance." "Is often" seems to be "weasel words" in this case. That can be okay a lot of times, but NOT when defining how to treat questionable information. Is it a guarantee or not? I'd say not. In particular, I'm thinking of stories where the number in the title refers to the number of main characters. While the fact that there are a particular number of characters can be important to the story...as in the story would be drastically different with any more or any less (in these instances, I think it will usually be 1, 2, or 3), interactions based on those numbers of characters (or people in general) are so common that it's pointless to mention individual instances except perhaps as examples for a larger generalization.

I agree with this; I see no purpose in mentioning Three men and a baby in 3 or even The Thirty Nine Steps in 39. I would argue that these constitute trivia and are not notable information about the number. Perhaps a better solution would be to include a link to search for articles with "N" or "Spelledy Number" in the title, e.g. [1] -- I'm not sure if there's a macro / template for that. (Maybe there's even a template to in-line search results?) Vynce (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an IP address join a project?[edit]

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry your question fell through the cracks. Any answer I give you now would probably not be relevant to you anymore, but here goes: No, they can't join. What difficulty do they have that prevents them from choosing a username and creating an account? PrimeFan (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing this question was asked because an IP listed itself as a participant on the same day. Jkasd 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If that person has made any further contributions to the articles covered by this project, it hasn't been under the IP address that signed up. Most likely it has been under a slightly different IP address, so the reason for this particular prohibition is practical rather than philosophical. Anton Mravcek (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Amharic Numbers[edit]

I just wanted to point out that Amharic numbers have been added to pages 1-9 by 130.237.50.84. Since these are just the roman numerals in brackets ("[1] [2] ...") I have attempted to contact the user to confirm that this is how the numbers should appear in that language and that it is not a formatting error. If I hear a response I will post it below. VegKilla (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? "[1] [2] ..." are not Roman numerals, they are Arabic numerals. And neither of these is what 130.237.50.84 has been adding: The numerals in Ge'ez alphabet#Numerals. Maybe they are not supported by your browser. See Help:Multilingual support (Ethiopic). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in statistics[edit]

This is a subheading on the project page, and says:

"For the statistical significance of a number to be worth including in a number article, it must either be:

  1. A number of axiomatic importance to the principles of statistics, i.e., a number that appears in many of the formulas used by statisticians. That's probably numbers like 1, 2 and π.
  2. A statistic that has attained historical or mythical status. "One half of all marriages end in divorce" is one example."

I'm a statistician. Under (1) I can think of only one, namely 1.96 (or more precisely 1.9599639845401..), which is the .975 point of the standard normal distribution and therefore is the multiplier used in 95% confidence intervals derived from the normal distribution (as many are in practice due to the central limit theorem). However this number doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria given at WP:Notability (numbers)#Irrational numbers e.g. it isn't in OEIS and it doesn't have a commonly-accepted name. Anyone think it's worth creating 1.96 ?

Under (2), the only one that comes to mind is "2.4 children", the near-legendary UK average family size (now closer to 1.8). "2.4" currently redirects to "anamorphic format" though. Qwfp (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to ~ 1.96, what would be the most recent journal paper in which you saw that number? In regards to 1/2, do you think the marriage example is mythical or is it close to reality? CompositeFan (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I was feeling bold (and bored) so I went ahead and created 1.96 so please see therein for a couple of references - i'll try to add a couple more at some point. If I shouldn't have created it I apologise... I dare say I'll find out soon enough.
The reality or otherwise of "half of all marriages..." and "2.4 children" is outside my area of expertise I'm afraid. Personally I doubt either are really noteworthy enough to be worth WP articles. --Qwfp (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template or table?[edit]

I've noticed that lots of the numbers articles have a template, while others (including the example on the project page) have tables with the same information. I personally, think that the template looks a lot better, but before I go around replacing them all, I just wanted to check here first to see what other people think. Jkasd 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Just try to avoid creating red links to articles about numbers we don't intend to create (e.g., 399 and 401, 8999 and 9001, etc.) PrimeFan (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the template so no redlinks would be created. Jkasd 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this is going to take a while so any help would be appreciated. Just start at Template:Number to see how to use it, and then move the information from the pre-existing tables to the template. Jkasd 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No one expects you do it all by yourself AND fast, but you can certainly choose to do it by yourself and gradually, slowly, or to coordinate. I'll take a look at your contributions page and decide on a spot I could start at. PrimeFan (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a pretty erratic schedule myself, but yeah, we probably could get it done in a few weeks. I've been putting the template at the very top, above the lead, because I think we should have a standardized place where it goes. Also, I've had some trouble using the misc parameter for 15 (number) and 16 (number). Anyways, thanks. Jkasd 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some functionality to the template, now you don't have to add the roman or binary numerals, it will just automatically generate them for you. (it ignores anything already in those fields) I'll see how this works out, and then add the same thing for octal, duodecimal and hexadecimal. If I have a huge stroke of genius, I might make one for factors and divisors. (not likely though) Jkasd 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's done, so don't bother putting in the roman or base fields in anymore. Jkasd 23:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it does. I put "XCIIII" for 94 and it showed up as "XCIV." Nicely done. Anton Mravcek (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I just added the already existing template:roman to the number template. But I did make the base converting templates (using the roman template as a start). Thanks -- Jkasd 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a chore, but it's long overdue. However, I have a few concerns with the way it's being done:
  1. The Hebrew numeral has been removed for numbers like 90. This calls for something more sophisticated than an all-or-nothing approach, imho.
  2. There seems to be some confusion as to what goes in the "prime" field. Compare 89 and 101.
  3. I'm happy to see duodecimal as standard in the template, but I'm not so sure about according that same status on octal.
You may prioritize them differently, and I respect you for that. I do acknowledge that the template can make it easier to clear up some of these confusions. Robert Happelberg (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing these points up. Here are my thoughts:
  1. The template does allow Hebrew and the numerals in other languages, see 15 (number). I think that if a number has special significance in a certain culture, then we should add the number in the relevant language, otherwise, just the basic template.
  2. I haven't been using this field at all, but I like the idea of putting its order in the list of primes as in 101 (number).
  3. I almost considered getting rid of duodecimal, but keeping octal. So I guess we'll just keep both. The only one besides the ones already included that might be worth adding (IMHO) is vigesimal, but I really don't think it's necessary.
After the consensus is clear on these points, I'll rewrite Template:Number/doc so others can use it easily too. Jkasd 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
On the third point, I think the question to ask is whether octal has more applications than duodecimal. Most scientific calculators have a key for octal, but given that hexadecimal essentially encodes an even number of binary bits, I doubt computer programmers have much use for it. On the other hand, C++ still provides support for octal as a language feature, doesn't it? PrimeFan (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I too like the idea of putting the value of the prime counting function in the prime field. The Slovene Wikipedia has been doing something similar for years. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The range field is no longer necessary anymore either, next will probably be the number names, as soon as Template:Numtext is finished. Jkasd 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is disambiguation lumped in on the "(number)" pages?[edit]

I'm sorry if this is an old issue or one that's explained somewhere else; I've scanned this article and WP:NUMBER and am still puzzled. Feel free to direct me to another reference if appropriate.

Basically, my question is, why do these articles combine information about the number itself with the content of a disambiguation page, and plunk the whole thing at X (number) instead of X (disambiguation)? Today I was looking up an article which turned out to be located at Interstate 66, but to find it on the 66 (number) page I had to wade through all kinds of stuff like which athletes wore the number "66" on their uniforms. Why is there not a separate 66 (disambiguation) page for topics that are referred to as "66", as opposed to all these other things that incorporate, refer to or represent the number itself? Propaniac (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding: I've gone through every archive of this Talk page for mentions of the issue (I ctrl+f-ed for "disambig") and while I can see some discussion, I still don't see anything indicating "This is why it makes sense to put the disambiguation on the (number) page instead of on its own page." Propaniac (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While it has been said before that the number pages are not disambiguation pages, it doesn't hurt to say it again. Some people, including a few deletionists, like to put every single bullet point they can think of on these number pages.
But at the same time let's also keep in mind that there are mathematical reasons for some number usages in our culture. The number of innings in a baseball game, a perfect score in bowling, an unlucky score in cricket, etc., these can all be explained mathematically. We (the project members) want the number articles to have paragraphs explaining these. What we don't want is a long, bullet-point list of items ephemerally related to a number (e.g., Smith the rookie wore #66 for half a season in 2001). PrimeFan (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I get the impression Propaniac feels "Interstate 66" belongs, and an athlete wearing "66" doesn't belong. While this may be true in terms of notability, I don't see any significant difference between these two instances of the number 66: Both are arbitrary and inherently un-noteworthy labels. Would anyone seriously looking for info about "Interstate 66" in a general encyclopedia begin by looking for just "66"?--Noe (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, especially if e.g., they're from California, and so think of a particular road as just "The 101" rather than "US Highway 101". (In Californian culture, it is common to call all numbered roads "The (Number)" regardless of whether it is a state route, US Route, or Interstate.)
Also, I don't get that feeling from Propaniac. I think he wants 66 (disambiguation) to exist and contain only things that are called 66 (e.g. Interstate 66, but probably not Ray Nitschke, Larry Pfohl, or even Mario Lemieux) so that he doesn't have to care what goes on the 66 (number) page.
And I'm inclined to agree with him. Vynce (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

how can i sign up?[edit]

I want to add a set of factors and prime factors to each article. can i have a go-ahead, or is this an excessive list?ne0pets22 (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Infobox for single numbers (now up to 200 or more); you're welcome to add the information in the same format as in existing articles. For articles about multiple numbers, probably not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
See, for example 8 for a manually-created infobox with the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it the divisors in Table of divisors and the prime factors in Table of prime factors you want to add to articles which are about an individual number and don't already have this information? I see you recently edited 2008 which is about the year and not the number. 1729 (number) is very different from 1729 (year). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit on 2008 was to add the Chinese zodiac definition, and it was (apparently) not appropriate for the article, although completely true. The main purpose of what i'm trying to do is to give a convenient reference point of factors, as most people wont take the time to look for an article named table of divisors when they want the factors for the number 155. thanks for permission though, ill just use the same layout as the preexisting tables and cite them. Are you guys sure the tables don't have any missing factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0pets22 (talkcontribs) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Year articles should not show factors and most articles about composite numbers such as 155 (number) already show prime factorization and divisors. If an article about a prime number says that it is a prime then I don't think it's necessary to show divisors. I made the tables in Table of prime factors with User:PrimeHunter/Table of prime factors (program). The factorizations should be correct. Somebody else made Table of divisors. I have not verified it. It would be trivial to make a program that writes prime factorization and divisors in a specified format, for example a table row with wiki formatting. If you want I can make a user subpage with a list of that, but do you know a significant number of articles where it's missing? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I looked around and the list of divisors in composite number articles is not as common as I thought. I will make a program. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So far I made User:PrimeHunter/Divisors for articles like 155 (number) which have a table without using {{Number}}. But I actually think {{Number}} should be used more systematically. Maybe the template should have more parameters and we should make a program to write a call of the template for each number with each relevant parameter set. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this whole thing is new to me, ill test out the numbers template in the sandbox to see how it works. ahh, so thats what it does. remember, that some numbers may have several factors. we dont want to fill that template with a load of stuff that would be easier read in the article body.ne0pets22 (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on notability[edit]

I ran across 40585 (number) while looking through articles tagged with {{Notability}}. In light of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers and any similar precedents this project may have handled, is this number "interesting" enough to have an article of its own, or should the article be merged or redirected to Factorion? --Dynaflow babble 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks non-notable to me. I haven't found other properties contributing to notability. I don't see any relevant content to add to factorion. For a "n (number)" name I think it would be more common to redirect to 40000 (number). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and have redirected it. Algebraist 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfd of interest, can a number ever be a redirect[edit]

This project might be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#214_.28number.29 where the basic idea of one number redirecting to another (where it is discussed in a section) is being called into question. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Numbers rating[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Numbers rating has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How to join?[edit]

I have created some disambuation pages for numbers, and then thought there may be guidelines, noting that there are a lot of number articles with the disambig contents in them. so i found this project, and i also see that "other uses" is discouraged, except for significant cases that relate to the properties of that number. I agree with this, and i would like to create more disambig pages for all those lists within number articles, but dont want to step on toes. see 501 (disambiguation), and 502 (disambiguation), for two i created (501 needs to be broken down into categories i think). wikiprojects are utterly new to me. how do i join? i couldnt find a guide to joining. (oh, and i have some familiarity with mathematics, im not just interested in the formatting of articles and contents. i guess you would probably have to be some sort of math geek (my self identifying term, no insult intended) to even care about the separation of pure numer information from cultural references. 6, 23, 24, 42, hike)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Standardization[edit]

Consider the quasi-lead of 230 (number):

230 (two hundred [and] thirty) is the natural number following 229 and preceding 231.

Problems include the name being italicized rather than bolded or plain text, and the name in the infobox is "two hundred (and) twenty". My proposal:

  1. We standardize with the name in plain text unless there is a plausible redirect (four?).
  2. We standardize on [and], rather than (and) (although this could be disputed)
  3. For smaller numbers such as 82 (number), where we have the options "eightytwo", "eighty two", and "eighty-two", we standardize on the last.
  4. We do not spell out the preceding and following numbers unless they are unambiguous (no question of "and" or hyphens).
  5. Additional questions on the Wikilinks within this one... two hundred probably redirects to 200 (number), so two hundred and thirty may work better.

Additional comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well? Anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me:
  1. Agreed: Standardize name in plain text, not bold or italic.
  2. Agreed: Bracketed rather than parenthesized "and". After all, the whole phrase is already in parentheses.
  3. Agreed: Hyphenate umpty-ump (eighty-two, etc.) numbers. So for example "two hundred [and] eighty-three".
  4. I'd go farther: Don't see reason to spell out preceding and following numbers at all, just use the numerals, e.g., "following 3 and preceding 5".
  5. Not sure I understood the additional question - is it a question of whether to use an unbracketed "and"? I say keep the brackets (in the quasi-lead): two hundred [and] thirty.
The Tetrast (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

No original research, applied to number articles[edit]

Quick question: is there a reason WP:NOR is not applied to number articles, especially to the mathematical properties?

The example that brought me here, for the article 42 (number): "It is the sum of the totient function for the first eleven integers."

While this sentence is indubitably true, I'm not entirely sure why anyone should care. I'm not aware of any importance attached to the sum of the first N integers of the totient function, and I am also not aware of any reliable source noting this property of 42 (or 32, or 46 for that matter,) making this original research. --Ashenai (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, per your example, that's just another way of saying that 42 is the twelfth element in Sloane's A002088, which, whether important or not, is at least a 4-digit Sloane's. I think WP:NOR is applicable,in a theoretical sense, but I suspect it's going to be very hard to find demonstrable cases. For one thing, just about every piece of arithmetic you or I will ever do has been done before -- which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't original research, but does mean that just because it *is* original research, doesn't mean it isn't *also* notable work. (In the article on 81, do we say that since the Lizzie Borden rhyme mentions only 40 and 41, summing those to 81 represents original research? ... of course, I'd rather remove things like that for other reasons, but as reductio ad absurdiem I think it makes my point.) That's my take, anyway. Vynce (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Also note Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It says routine calculations are OK "provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." In other words, there still needs to be a source that it comes from rather directly, and if editors disagree, then it doesn't apply. As to the 42, it's OK to cite its presence in A002088, I think, but not OK to mention that factoid without a source. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
But there are of course sources to the value of small totients. If oeis:A002088 didn't exist then I think for example oeis:A000010 or [2] would be enough to allow editors to calculate the sum of the first 11 terms. Whether the sum being 42 would be worth mentioning in 42 (number) if nobody else had considered the idea of summing totients is another matter. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were no source relative to the sum, it shouldn't be mentioned; at least, if I saw it, I'd be that editor who doesn't agree with including it without a source. Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because someone has done a calculation before doesn't make it notable, and incidentally also doesn't make that someone a WP:SOURCE, by Wikipedia standards. In any case, maybe WP:NOR isn't the best tack. However, it seems terrible that you can just add any old property to integer articles, and there seems to be no well-defined criterion of notability for properties of numbers.
The comment about it being a 4-digit Sloane's is pretty telling, if that's the best marker of notability we have. How many four-digit Sloane's does 42 appear in? I don't know, but at a very rough estimate (after looking at a few at random,) I'd say 1500 or so. I did the search, and the answer is 744. Are all of those corresponding 744 properties worth listing in the 42 (number) article? Obviously, no. Is there something special about the totient sum property that makes it more worthwhile than the other 743? If there is, I certainly don't know about it.
Worst of all, this is not an isolated problem. The debates I've seen (and participated in) about certain number properties were, in essence: "This isn't notable!" "Sure it is, and it's also cool!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uhuh!"
Well, I want a better metric. I've read Wikipedia:Evaluating_how_interesting_an_integer's_mathematical_property_is, and I think it's pretty good for our purposes. What do you guys think? Can you come up with something better? Is there a reason that article isn't a guideline, or was it just a lack of concerted will? --Ashenai (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) I agree that the citation to Sloane's should be added, as per Dicklyon; sources++. I am not sure I agree that the source is necessary for inclusion of the fact, and I'm glad it's moot so I can think about it later.
(2) I agree that a metric should exist; I am not a huge fan of the linked document because while it is interesting, it is not particularly easily applied; I wonder if it could be simplified or automated, at least for cases in Sloane's. (IMO, Any method which requires knowing the mathematician's Erdos number is inconvenient, and probably significantly biased.) Edit:added: Also, I'm of the opinion that step 5 is entirely backwards; it seems to me that the lower the A-number, the more important the sequence, and step 5 awards the sequence number as points.
(3) Personally, long before coming down on things like mathematical properties -- even ones as silly as "polite numbers" -- I'd like to get rid of trivia that has nothing to do with the actual number (e.g. Four's "The fourth finger of a human hand (on the left hand - ring-finger) is moved when the little finger moves"), and make separate disambiguation pages for other things that go by the name of the number (e.g. highways, or Low_density_polyethylene). Basically, once a number is notable enough to have an article, I just don't see a lot of point in quibbling over which of its (potentially many) properties get included.
(4) But my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, as I'm also of the opinion that as a matter of WP:NPOV, years should all be re-named NNNN CE with AD NNNN being a redirect to that, and the number should be the target of NNNN (with a link to the year & disambiguation pages, if any). ~ Vynce (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

281's redirection to 280[edit]

I'm just using this as an example - I fully expect there to be lots of other instances of this but in lieu of trying to change them all, myself, I figured I'd post here. Maybe someone can write a bot or something to change this. Anyway,

281 (number) redirects to 280 (number), however, while 280 (number) links to List of highways numbered 280, the redirected 281 (number) (ie. 280 (number)) does not link to List of highways numbered 281. It seems like it should and indeed, it further seems that all List of highways numbered 28x ought to be linked to in 280 (number). The same is probably true for years, as well, since right now, 280 (number) only links to 280 - not 281. TerraFrost (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


I find that 228 redirects to 220! How can I find the info for 228(number)??

Thanks. Cjfeeh (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has created a page with significant info about the number 228. You will have to settle with the little at 220 (number)#221-229. This is why 228 (number) redirect to 220 (number). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many examples[edit]

In looking through many of the articles for numbers, I’m appalled at how terrible and unencyclopedic many of these articles are, and I was wondering if there is any set of guidelines for what kind of information should be included or omitted from such articles. I’m just curious, because many of the articles I glanced at were garbage. Awhile back, I removed a tremendous amount of trivial information from the 162 (number) article. I went to that article to add that the number represents the amount of games played in a regular Major League Baseball season. Most of the numbers articles I looked at are pretty bad and contain so many irrelevant examples as to make the article nonsensical. Most of my following examples come from the 163 (number) article, but many articles are just like it.

Here are the following things I believe should not at all be included in any number article:

  1. Examples that barely make use of the number in the article. For example, the extrasolar planet HD 167042 b mentioned in the 163 (number) article because it is 163 light years away from the constellation of Draco.
  2. Combined total of something that adds up to the number in the article. For example, the Australian television show Consider Your Verdict ran from 1958 to 1960 for 163 episodes.
  3. Transportation routes that contain the number in the article. I’m not too sure about this one, but I don’t think Nevada State Route 163 or any other highway of its kind should be mentioned in the respective article.
  4. Sports statistics that add up to the number in the article. There are literally thousands of variations, but they are useless information. For example, MLB pitchers Cy Young and Tim Wakefield each hit 163 opposing batters. However, I believe that record statistics, such as Walter Johnson’s 110 shutouts may be included in the 110 (number) article. Conversely, most sports statistics are numbers too high to have their own articles.
  5. Meaningless geographic statistics, such as Cape Verde being #163 in world population or Tradewinds, Texas having a population of 163.
  6. Buildings or non-notable locations that may use that number. For example, Sierra View District Hospital is a 163-bed, acute care facility in Porterville, California or Andrew John Volstead House, 163 Ninth Avenue, Granite Falls, Minnesota.
  7. Songs or other trivial information that doesn’t even have its own article. For example, the song “One Hundred Ways” by Quincy Jones being mentioned in the 100 (number) article. I believe that information should at least have its own distinct article before being considered for inclusion in a number article.

The list can go on and on, but I think the examples I mentioned are reason enough to affirm that many of the number articles— not just 100 or 163— are garbage. They contain little useful information, and that information is lost in a see of pointless examples. I didn’t read through all of the old discussions or comments to see if this issue was addressed before, but if it was, it hasn’t been resolved. I saw so many different articles with problems that I didn’t even want to take the time to compile them into a list. Could someone please give me some insight into why these articles are like this, especially if you’re someone who added all this garbage information? —Notorious4life (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of such examples were added by Nycjobs (talk · contribs), for example in [3] for 163. On 10 August I posted to User talk:Nycjobs#Number articles but the user has no edits since then. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When considering the inclusion or exclusion of an item in a number page, the questions I ask about the item:

  1. Is the number defining and identifying, and makes the item what it is? (include)
  2. Is the number an attribute or by-the-way statistic? (generally not include)
  3. Is the number changing or fixed? (generally not include changing numbers)
  4. How notable is the item? (sufficiently notable items can be included)

Applying these rules to the examples above, with NO (do not include) or YES (may include):

  1. The extrasolar planet HD 167042 b is 163 light years away from the constellation of Draco (NO - a by-the-way statistic)
  2. Number of episodes in a completed series (YES - fixed number, and the number may be sufficiently notable)
  3. Transportation routes (YES - the number is fixed and part of what defines and identifies the route)
  4. Sports statistics that add up to the number (NO - a by-the-way statistic that may be changing). Sports or other records (YES - the number is usually changing, but may be very notable).
  5. Geographic statistics, such as ranked #163 in world population or having a population of 163 (NO - a changing number)
  6. Non-notable buildings and non-notable locations that may use that number (NO - not notable or a changing number). Notable buildings and notable locations that may use that number (YES - the number is fixed, part of what defines and identifies the item, and the item is notable)
  7. Television, film, music, and books that include the number in the title (YES - the number is fixed, part of what defines and identifies the item, and the item is notable)

The rules and examples above are about inclusion and exclusion. There is a separate discussion about what belongs in a number article and what belongs in the disambiguation page for a number, but these rules and examples are not about that discussion. Obankston (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Notorious4life and the given examples which should not be included on number pages. Basically, trivia or coincidences such as this can be dug up by the million by your favourite search engine. Once we reach a consensus on this, can we place some guidelines on an appropriate page?
One exception does come to mind: I do support the inclusion of a link to a list of numbered highways or streets, such as:
What shall we do with links like the following?
Cheers,
PolarYukon (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with guidelines, as long as they are presented as commonsense guidelines, rules of thumb, starting out in a kind of beta version. It's probably too "meta" to display them, even in very brief form, in the articles themselves, but they could go atop or near the tops of the talk pages. The Tetrast (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
Let me quickly add that those of us (such as me) who haven't checked the talk page archives on this should do so. I'll get around to it and post about what I find if anything. The Tetrast (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I've been occupied with unrelated matters and that may continue for a while longer. Anyway, PolarYukon's comments above make sense to me. The Tetrast (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Organization of number pages[edit]

I arrived at 8 (number) to check info on the symbolism of 8 in some East Asian cultures to find to my surprise there was no info, even though I was sure I'd read it before in the article. Checking the history, sure enough I found it disappeared after moved by User:PolarYukon to 8 (disambiguation). While some of the info he/she moved may indeed not belong in 8 (number) to me it makes little sense that the info on the symbolism of the number 8 in some cultures does not. From what I can tell, this changes was also never discussed.

Looking further, it seems PolarYukon did the same thing for 9 (disambiguation) and 9 (number). This of course means things like 1 (number), 2 (number), 3 (number)), 4 (number), 5 (number), 6 (number), 7 (number) etc still follow something similar to the system before PolarYukon made these undiscussed changes. Why PolarYukon chose 8 and 9 for this special treatment, I don't know.

In any case, it also means the disambig pages for those two things are full of stuff which would not normally occur on a disambig page, and likely violate the guidelines on a disambig page. (It's worth remembering disambig pages are intended to direct people to relevant articles on the subject, not be a collection of random facts.) As I've said, I'm not opposed to a change but such a major change clearly needs to be well discussed, probably inviting feedback from outside the wikiproject. (There's been some discussion here, but there's no real conclusion or decision I've seen and from a quick glance at the project page, these changes don't follow the suggested format.) Ideally if it is discussed, then perhaps several users will be involved in the eventual cleanup work so that we aren't left with 2 pages following one format and goodnessknows how many others following the older format for several months or years. (Obviously this isn't going to happen instantly).

I for one, would strongly oppose what I regard as an illogical removal of highly relevant things such as a symbolism of the number 8 from our article on the number 8. If we only want to have things on mathematics, then we should have an article 8 (mathematics) which would cover that, and the article 8 (number) would keep covering things related to the number 8 that aren't involved in maths. I thought of just reverting the changes, but since it's been a while PY and others have made other, perhaps useful changes in the meantime, and I for one, am not particularly interested in having to spend my time cleaning up some undiscussed and IMHO very poorly considered changes to what are fairly important articles.

P.S. A thought occured to me from a quick glance at this page, can anyone imagine the hell following PolarYukon's changes to the natural conclusion and removing any mention of THGTTG from 42 (number). That in itself is surely enough evidence this is an exceptionally bad idea.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations are quite harsh for edits that have been done with the best intentions. I am happy to discuss all the possibilities for what is appropriate with all the editors, as long as we stay true to the Wikipedia principles. Let's stick to the principles of quality and content, and leave our emotions at the door.
I would kindly remind Nil Einne to remain professional in such discussions. Prior behaviour has been an issue, for example:
From your comments above, there is no such thing as "our article" in Wikipedia, as I understand it. These are everyone's articles. The articles belong to the Wikipedia community, not one editor or particular group.
As for the consistency of the changes, I started at number 9 and worked through to number 8. Organizational efforts such as these can take some time. Of course, when we work as a team, the process goes faster to bring all the desired articles to the desired condition.
So, to answer your question, there was no "special treatment" for 8 and 9, as nice as they may be! If there had been more time, I would have made similar improvements to further articles.
It has taken a great deal of time (as you can see by the edits) to organize and categorize the information appropriately. This is an ongoing process, which I will now hold-off on until our direction is more clear.
Let's get back to the subject matter at hand:
I would like to point out, there have been no objections to these cleanup efforts on either of the articles (or talk pages). The changes were started very gradually to allow for any objections. Furthermore, it is worth noting that these edits have been up for some time now. This shows that most of the people who are watching the articles are at some level of agreement with the changes. Specifically, please see:
Also, please see the comments above under Why is disambiguation lumped in on the "(number)" pages?, which seem to support the changes which have been made for 8 & 9.
In conclusion, I would propose that we discuss a possible better organizational system to deal with number pages. All comments are welcome. My position is that:
  • I definitely do not support the disorganized lumping of information that currently exists for most of the number pages, with a separate, redundant disambiguation page. This doesn't make sense.
  • I support some kind of page for the number relating to mathematics and the glyph. When you look at 8 (number) or 9 (number), the pages read well, and are of a reasonable length. If the (number) naming could be improved upon, let's discuss it.
  • I support some kind of page for all items related to the number, such as 8 (number disambiguation), or 8 (disambiguation). Yes, this doesn't completely follow the disambiguation pages rules. Maybe we should discuss possible changes to the rules. The goal is to organize this information in a useful, Wikipedia way.
Thank you for your continued professional discussion.
Kind regards,
PolarYukon (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the underlying problem here is that the ambiguous base names are occupied by articles about years. I think readers would be better served if 8 (disambiguation) were at 8 and the year article were at 8 AD or 8 (year). --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The disambiguation pages should include only brief entries identifying other articles that might also be known as simply "8" or "Eight". It should not contain references or long descriptive entries where there is not an ambiguous article title. Whether the content belongs on 8 (number) or somewhere else, I don't know. olderwiser 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the "8 (year)" or "8 AD" suggestion (Wikipedia actually would use "8 CE", "8 BCE", etc.), but there are now tons of links to the year pages as currently titled.
  • I support the reasonably organized lumping of information that currently exists for most of the number pages.
  • I agree with Nil Einne that disambiguation pages are not supposed to be for the kind of content which has recently been moved into them.
  • I deny that numbers are absolutely nothing but abstract mathematical objects and I deny that numbers are generally seen — even by mathematicians — as absoloutely nothing but abstract mathematical objects, as I have known mathematicians not to be hostile to the "lore" of numbers and have noticed, just for example, a mathematician Arthur Rubin happy at the 3 (number) page to keep traditional threes (such as "Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetic") whose inclusion makes some sort of sense http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3_(number)&action=historysubmit&diff=310412470&oldid=310324744.
  • Numbers are also cultural objects, subdivided into numbers proper and numerals, and these issues have been the subject of intelligent interest.
  • In and out of mathematics and various sciences, and in and across cultures, numbers, especially the small, familiar ones, tend to be the bearers of suggestive patterns which are among the main reasons that the general reader visits the number pages, with an interest that is unconfined to mathematics yet often stops short of the sleepy murk of numerology, an interest in seeing what they can make of the assemblage of disparate data and even trivia.
  • The number pages are bound to be among the lighter, less deep pages, even if they were to consist of nothing but abstract mathematical information about individual numbers. Mathematics is not about individual numbers, there are no mathematical fields such as "medology", "monology", "duology," "triology", etc. (Added:) A mere list of mathematical facts about a given number is hardly better than a list of cultural facts about that number. (End addition The Tetrast (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)) This is part of why it would not make sense to break the pure-mathematical and non-pure-mathematical info into separate articles.
Agree that the mathematical and non-mathematical info should not be broken into separate articles, since there is a gray zone, wherein people look for patterns, surrounding mathematics (by definition looking for patterns), recreational mathematics, numerology, and the use of numbers in popular culture. Obankston (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Let a number page be what it is by the very nature of the necessarily non-mathematically spirited choice to have a page about an individual number. The Tetrast (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC). Tweaked. The Tetrast (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

More:

  • If a given subject matter, such as number, should be treated at Wikipedia only from the viewpoint of serious study (though the very idea of a number page contradicts the idea of serious mathematical study), then the voluminous pages on popular culture - the Wikipedia page on the US TV game show Jeopardy! for example - should be heavily revised to reflect only psychological, sociological, linguistic, communications-theoretic, historical, philosophical-aesthetic, etc., etc., studies of them, instead of containing the massive amounts of "fun" information which they currently contain (last time that I saw the Jeopardy! article, I liked it a lot). Again, the nature of a topic choice points the way to the nature of the treatment, which is not always mathematical or scientific. A page about an individual number does not correspond to any serious field of mathematical study. The Tetrast (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
Repairing incoming links to 8 would be a simple matter, using tools. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For a long time now I have been mulling over some ideas about disambiguation pages, set index articles, disambiguation, and the idea of a "primary topic". Those ideas seem highly relevant to this discussion. Now I have made a start on expressing those ideas: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic not necessarily an article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the recent changes to 8 (disambiguation) and 9 (disambiguation). The pages as currently formed do not represent disambiguation pages at all, violating all guidelines at WP:D3 and WP:MOSDAB and ignoring both guidelines and rationale at WP:D. I can see only 2 solutions; rename the pages and remove the disambiguation template, starting a new disambiguation page afresh in each case, or reverting to a version before content was moved wholesale from the number pages. I am proposing reversion at each page for discussion. In either case, please can I urge all editors to familiarise themselves with the disambiguation page rationale and guidelines before editing disambiguation pages. -- MegaSloth 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSloth (talkcontribs)
I'm inclined to reversions in the disambiguation pages and the affected number pages, but I'm still waiting for responses to the arguments made in opposition to the recent changes. I'd like to add, to my comments above, that despite my sounding favorable to trivia in a certain sense, I do not support inclusion of really trivial items such as listed in the #Too many examples section above. The Tetrast (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
I concur the changes should be reverted for not following disambiguation page guidelines. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Another editor cleaned up 9 (disambiguation) by hand, probably unaware of this discussion. To prevent this fate befalling anyone else, I have gone ahead and reverted 8 (disambiguation). The changes to this page were over a much shorter time and thus the result is in any case cleaner. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently according to PolarYukon at Talk:8 (disambiguation)#Problems with recent edits, this discussion is intended to "develop a more specific guideline for number disambiguation pages, to deal with their unique attributes, but no one has commented on this yet". Firstly, this is the wrong forum. Such questions should be addressed at WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation; 8 (disambiguation) is no more a number page than 8 (2008 film). Secondly, I see three editors – myself, Tetratest and Cybercobra – calling for the disambiguation pages to follow disambiguation page guidelines. The other two contributors apart from PolarYukon have not indicated their position with regard this issue. In my opinion, 3 objections out of 6 participants is significant negative comment. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That quotation is out of context; please see the entire comment at Talk:8_(disambiguation)#Problems_with_recent_edits. Thank you, PolarYukon (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to take part in this discussion, except to point out a few things in my defence since PY raised several issues which I feel cast me in an unfair light.
When I said our article, I meant the article that belongs to the entire wikipedia community who decides what should and should not go in it, in other words, our wikipedia article. If you don't consider yourself part of the wikipedia community, then you probably shouldn't be making such major undiscussed changes to articles. If you do consider yourself part of the wikipedia community, then I'm not sure why you don't consider yourself part of 'us' or if you do, why you don't consider the article 'our article'. (Or to put it a different way, if you don't consider the articles on the numbers 8 and 9 'our articles' meaning you and everyone elses, then I'm not sure why you're editing them.)
We as a community decide was goes in the our articles, including our article on the number 8 and number 9 and while you are entitled to participate in that, so is everyone else including me and outsiders who've never participated in the wikipedia before if they wish to involve themselves now. We as community (mostly) want to make wikipedia a great encyclopaedia and while it's often difficult to get an agreement on what that means we can at a minimum agree that means making great articles and part of that is deciding what goes in our articles. I definitely think, everyone is entitled to an opinion of what goes in our articles and I'm strongly of the opinion that it's ludicrious that our article on the number 8 and number 9 doesn't mention cultural phenomenon associated with the number 8 and number 9.
I would point out in case there is any confusion I'm not a part of this wikiproject and as far as I'm aware, I've never even made any post here before and therefore obviously did not mean to imply the article in any way belonged to the wikiproject.
Also, before making remarks about my previous editing, please either read the history of what you're linking to, or ask me about it. I still believe that User:Deva 840 is a sockpuppet of a problematic banned user, however as Deva840 never did much else after being unblocked other then to complain to me, it's irrelevant. And I do not consider I did not do anything wrong in my dealings with that user. I made a sockpuppet investigation request, with the evidence I garned on wikipedia, as would any editor dealing with sockpuppets. A checkuser investigated and decided there was sufficient evidence and blocked the user. Some time later, the user e-mailed the checkuser and pleaded innocence and the checkuser decided to accept the users story and unblocked them. The checkuser never approached me about my behaviour or anything at all, nor did anyone else so I'm reliable confident no one believes I did anything substanially wrong in the way I handled that situation.
As for User talk:DaleEastman, a user who was temporarily blocked a few days after that complaint (for unrelated reasons), I do not feel I did anything majorly wrong, that user added a comment that was somewhat soapboxy and basically repeated what had already been discussed as naseum (and continued to be discussed ad naseum) to the top of an existing section heading of an article talk page discussion in a very confusing manner. I removed this comment and informed them they should not add such comments to article talk pages and they definitely should not be adding them to the top of an existing section heading. This user reverted my removal adding the back their soapboxy comment which someone else later moved down so it wasn't in such an odd place. The talk page in question was very active at the time, and difficult to get under control even with an archive time of 1 day. In fact one of the things which probably helped a lot was quick insitu archiving and removal of OT comments or those rehashing things said 50 times over by other users. And that specific article and of course therefore talk page I should add is now under probation and I susspect that the comment they made would be removed were it made now. Perhaps I could have phrased my comments to the user better and perhaps I should have just moved it down rather then attempting to remove it but I still feel that was an acceptable course of action and you're free to see the comment in question and where it was added [4] and decide for yourself whether you think it belongs in the talk page and whether adding it in such an odd place is a good idea.
I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes in my dealings with users before (I have), but I do not consider these examples particularly good ones, so please don't bring them up unless you believe they are. Many experienced wikipedians get complaints on their behaviour all the time, some of them have merit, some of them do not.
P.S. The bit about 'special treatment' was I admit partially intended as sarcasm. I wasn't particularly sure why you choose 8 or 9 and I'm still not but I did wonder if you intended to work the way thorough all the articles but were doing it very slowly. However part of my intention was to illustrate the problems with your approach. By starting at 9 you had to work both upwards and downwards to fix all our articles. More importantly, by making these changes with any real discussion you involved no one who could help you to the task faster and given your work rate (which I'm not criticising in itself) would likely be years before you got thorough the rest of the number articles with no one else to aide you or even knowing that it was going on and able to offer their advice and opinions. This left situation of 8 and 9 being odd compared to our other articles and likely confusing to anyone visiting them and then another number article, say 4, 7, 10, 13, 42 or whatever. And of course the likely possibility, which apparently happened of people coming along and removing the content thinking it didn't belong. If we did agree to these changes (which seems unlikely at least in the current proposed format) and we couldn't handle them within a few days, then a possible solution may have been a template to inform people of the process. In other word even ignoring the need for discussion, making these changes to these specific articles in that way was always going to be a very bad idea.
P.P.S. While may feel the criticism were a bit harsh, my POV is that even though you were acting in good faith, it is important you understand why what you did was a bad idea which includes the problems it created, a better way to handle it in the future and that it created work for other people to clean up. Being bold doesn't mean being reckless. Understanding that we screwed up and how and why we screwed up is an important part of learning to be better and while I know (from personal experience) it can be hard it is imperative when working on a colloborative encylopaedia. This doesn't mean we have to repeatly mention the mistakes ad nauseum (in fact that can be harrassment) but that there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they were mistakes in the first instance.
Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sum of n consecutive primes.[edit]

An editor has been adding "sum of 12 consecutive primes" to various number articles, presumably as per the example (sum of 3, 4, and 5). I think this may be getting out of hand. Is it true that most numbers are the some of some number of consecutive primes? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Sloane's, it seems that about half of (small) numbers are sums of (one or more) consecutive primes. But here has an unanswered request for a proof that there are infinitely many numbers which are not sums of consecutive primes, so it might be that not much is known for certain. Algebraist 15:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi templates[edit]

Incnis Mrsihas proposed some changes to the {{Infobox number}} template, and an additional template to go on top of number articles:

Divisibility of 60:                               /30  
Multiples × 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific
… of [[../10|10]]:                                                
… of [[../12|12]]:                                                
… of [[../15|15]]:                                                
… of [[../20|20]]:                                                
… of [[../30|30]]:                                                
… of [[../60|60]]:                                                

Personally, I don't like either suggestion, but it's only appropriate to invite everyone to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox number#Multiplicative navigation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging number articles[edit]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Tagging number articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can no longer find that discussion. Nevertheless, it looks to me like these articles have become overrun with WP:POINTCRUFT, that is, the addition of dozens of random data items involving integers in order to make the WP:POINT that these articles will never be worthy of an encyclopedia. I was going to give up on trying to clean that up, when I saw the nice picture of a 120-cell in the 120 article. Knodeltheory (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 60#Tagging number articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing that link. Knodeltheory (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's WP:POINTCRUFT: it's the lack of clear guidance on what number articles should contain, and a resulting combination of, for example, 57 (number), 57 (mathematics), and list of things related to 57, all of which are useful things to have. Perhaps those things do belong together, after all? Certainly, large-scale changes without consensus would be a bad idea.
See also the discussion above on 8 and 9, which are still in a mess as a result of poorly thought out unilateral changes. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that I don't much care for designations. Interstate 80 could just as easily have been I-78 or I-12 or whatever other 2-digit even number was available.
Mercury, on the other hand, has to have 80 protons or else it's another element.
Though I concede some people might look up 80 (number) expecting to find something there about I-80. Knodeltheory (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why the list of things related to 57 (currently part of 57 (number)) is necessary: when people are searching for something of which they know only the identifying number and the class. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate for a minute: how would [[list of things related to 57]] be organized and how would you prevent degeneration into a chaotic listing of anything only tangentially related to 57? Knodeltheory (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Beats me. One of the reasons people like to stick with what we've got is that it sort-of-works (with each number article performing several distinct functions), and any improvement would be (1) very hard work, and (2) subject to its own challenges, such as the one you describe. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINTCRUFT edit summaries[edit]

A certain editor has been removing the "trivia" and "mathematics" sections of number articles, over at least the past 3 weeks. His edits on 35 have been reverted, but it looks like he's done at least all numbers over 77, and some of them have had twiddles more recently, so that I can't easily revert them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's bordering on vandalism, particularly in the light of the discussion above. I suggest the admins get involved on this one. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I am an admin. However, I tried to revert some of the {{examplefarm}} edits, so I think I might be involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Integers sort keys.[edit]

Please check Category talk:Integers#199E03 vs. 199e03. It may be of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

5.0[edit]

FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Nelly 5.0 about the usage of 5.0

76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical years[edit]

I think the "Historical years" section for 2-digit numbers should be Wikilinked, in spite of WP:YEARLINK, as they are modified "See also" sections. If this project agrees, I'd like to bring it up there for modification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup[edit]

I've done a preliminary run for the numbers from 1 to 99, and I've noticed some of the following which don't belong, for various numbers nn:

  • Superbowl NNN (nn in roman numerals)
  • STS-nn, the space shuttle mission number nn.
  • nnth United States Congress (and sometimes the nnth United States President and an occassional nnth United States Secretary of State and nnth Pope)
  • and frequently, nnth annual events and events in 19nn. Also some song titles containing "'nn" and "19nn".

Do we have consensus to kill those? I've also been trimming non-retired sport jersey numbers, and tried to trim some team and personal records, rather than records relating to the entire league or sport. I'm not sure about sports records of any sort, but I believe we have consensus for some of those to be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review seriousness v. proposed deletion as parody of new article Names of small numbers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers[edit]

Numbers WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers

Thank you. Pandelver (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Pi[edit]

The usage of {{pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

π (pi)[edit]

The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whole number (number theory)[edit]

Whole number (number theory) has been prodded for deletion. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

number 1[edit]

The usage of 1 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see Talk:1, to see if small numbers should be numbers or years. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

template:binary[edit]

I updated template:binary to accept numbers up to 2^27 (previously 2^17), and fractions, up to ten "decimal" points. I informed User:Jkasd of the changes already, but thought this WikiProject should know as well. If anyone wants to take a look at it, please go ahead. I essentially just adapted the octal template to produce three bits per calculation, while the decimals are a simple 2^x mod 2 calculation. It produces an identical output to the previous template for all values valid for both. There is also an additional input field - the second field can take a positive integer (0-10) to indicate the number of "decimal" points. If no precision is specified, it automatically truncates at either the 1s digit or the last significant digit of a decimal (eg, {{binary|.25}}=.012, while 5=1012, 1.3|5=1.010102, and 2.5|4=10.10002, while 2.5|0=102). Just thought I'd let you know of the update. VIWS talk 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 99999[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 99999 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The first entry might be worthy of a redirect, but the Feynman point, logically, should be pointed to by 999999. I don't think it's worth keeping the redirect.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Number article Template[edit]

I changed the template for number articles for templates to remove "Number N is the natural number following Number N - 1 and preceding Number N + 1" and User:Arthur_Rubin reverted the edit. My reason for the removal was that, to me, it is rather like starting all biographies with "Xyz was a human being and had a mother and father." The statements are true and maybe even verifiable, but to me they just look like something a (not very smart) computer would say. I'm not going to go to war over this, but I just wanted to see what other people think of the statement. I think it makes us sound like a bunch of numpties, but I'll go along with whatever the crowd decides. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I guess it is included mainly to provide links to the articles of the neighbouring numbers. I'd leave it in. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Transport[edit]

I've made a change to the transportation sections in 127 (number), 128 (number), and 129 (number) by consolidating all the entries on roads into one entry reading

127 is the number of many roads, including [insert very notable road(s)].

What do you think? Would it be okay if I did this with all transportation sections? "Pepper" @ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1909 (number)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 1909 (number) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is only one fact about the number, and it's not that interesting. Alternatively, redirect to 1000, and add the one fact there.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive dabs needed[edit]

As far as I can tell the manually constructed infoboxes for numbers (in themselves a highly questionable enterprise), e.g. as in Million or 152 (number) usually link to the wrong articles for cardinal number and ordinal number, when they should link to cardinal number (linguistics) and ordinal number (linguistics). I won't do anymore manual replacement because I think those articles should actually use a proper infobox facilitating centralized maintenance for such issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Integer template[edit]

Hi, I just made the template {{Integers}}. I put it on 31 articles so far, but it's pretty tedious. Does anyone maybe know how to make a bot to do it?ypnypn (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated, but many articles have a manually constructed table instead of the proper {{Infobox number}}. Is anyone working on that?ypnypn (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there any centralized discussion of which numbers should gain their own articles, or is it every man for himself? I mean, 224 has quite a bit of information, (not to mention the Interesting Number Paradox).ypnypn (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the higher-number articles which list numbers in a range (e.g. 300) seem not to have any consistent layout. This ought to be fixed.ypnypn (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, feel free to post info between the above paragraphs.)

broken values in generated number boxes[edit]

(I added similar stuff to the talk pages for "101" and "201", but apparently no one has noticed. I'm repeating it here in the hopes that someone who knows how to fix the template(?) will see it.)

The binary values on the 101 page shows as 101(subscript-2), the ternary value shows as 2(subscript-3), etc. These are wrong, as are the various other values below these.

The same kind of problem is on the "201" page too. Probably lots of other pages too, but I haven't checked. I looks to me like the html generator, when reading the "101" value, converts it incorrectly.

I'm using a recent version of Google Chrome.

Dr Smith (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FIXED

Dr Smith (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How much trivia belongs in number articles?[edit]

What information belongs in number articles (such as 73 (number)), and what should be excluded as trivia?

16:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevant guideline: MOS:TRIVIA


For example, which of the following (all of which are currently in that article) should be mentioned?

  • Important mathematical properties of 73 (star number)
  • Unimportant mathematical properties of 73 (odd number)
  • Bands, places, companies, etc. with 73 as part of the name (Pizza 73)
  • Highways numbered 73 (Interstate 73) (note that many numbers have dozens of such highways)
  • Atomic number 73 (tantalum)
  • Events etc. which incidentally relate to 73 (seconds after launch that the Challenger exploded)
  • Publications, shows, etc. which discuss 73 (the 73rd episode of The Big Bang Theory)
  • Games which include 73 as part of the rules (the 73 minutes given in international curling competitions)
  • Sport records of 73 (home runs by Barry Bonds in 2001)
  • Athletes numbered 73 (Jonathan Scott )

and so on and so forth. Basically, what is relevant for readers, and what is not? -- YPNYPN 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd only include star number and tantalum.
I believe being odd is an important mathematical property but it is just not specific enough to 73.
If there was a very good reason which was noted somewhere that a place was called for instance Pizza 73 that might be worth putting in - however the Pizza 73 article does not say anything like that. If it isn't important enough for an article specifically about the subject then it isn't worth putting here. The same applies to Interstate 73, The Big Bang Theory and Jonathan Scott.
The atomic number is a very specific number determining the properties of an element and noted as such. However I would not include elements which included 73 neutrons plus protons, e.g. there is no point including Helium under 4 but there is under 2.
The 73 seconds of the Challenger explosion is just incidental, there is no real connection and nothing has been written indicating there was a reason for that specific number rather than say 47 or 113.
Overall the reasons for excluding mentioning it is odd are the only ones I consider as requiring spelling out properly. The rest come under the not of interest for the actual number and noted as specifically interesting compared to other numbers in cited sources. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My 2c: it should contain important properties of the number relating to mathematics, literary symbolism, numerology, science and technology, etc. Here "important" in mathematics means that the property is significant enough to have a Wikipedia article and that the number in question is one of the smallest half dozen or so numbers with that property; e.g. being an "odd number" is certainly a significant property but 73 comes too late in the list of odd numbers for it to be particularly interesting as an example of an odd number. In literary symbolism and numerology, every claim should be reliably sourced, and I think the existence of such sourcing is enough to show that those meanings are important enough to include. In science and technology, atomic numbers should probably be included, and uses of the number as important parts of network protocols (e.g. 404 to indicate a nonexistent web page) but not e.g. asteroids with that number (because having an asteroid with a number is not a distinguishing property of the number). It should not list articles for which the number is only incidental to their notability (e.g. sports players who have that jersey number). Articles that have the number in the title may be listed in a see also section, although I suspect Pizza 73 is of too localized interest to include. There is usually a separate list of highways with a given number and that should be included as one item in the see-also section rather than listing each highway separately. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty much a non-mathematician though I do have an interest in some areas. 73 (number) is structured more like a disambig page than anything else. I would expect it to focus on the properties of the number, and not names that include it. You could move the current article to 73 (disambig) with relatively little change to its structure. If the number 73 has sufficient mathematical properties and wider cultural relevance to make it notable then by all means enlarge on that at 73 (number). That might include a few cultural uses such as if a comedy programme discussed the properties of the number 73, the deliberate choice of 73 in curling, or (as is the case for Highway 61), someone wrote a famous song about it. But where 73 is just part of a name, that should be for the disambig page. Just my opinion, HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
We might distinguish several classes of entry, possible overlapping, (and I think the above users more or less did)
  1. Incidental - someone lives at number 73, this number is not generally relevant (Exceptions for usage - Number 10 Downing Street is also known as "Number 10" - it should be in the article)
  2. Identifiers - 7400 chips, atomic numbers, - here the number is used virtually or completely as an alias - the numerical value may or may not carry meaning
  3. Partial - Route 73, BC109 - depends on the notability/significance
  4. Characteristic - things about the number - depends on the notability/significance
For most of these things I would suggest a tapered approach, the lower numbers we should be using a finer mesh to sieve out entries. Example; there are probably many A14 roads, but not so many A404s. 65000 should mention the song, 76 maybe not. Rationale: If someone enters 65000 the chance they want the song is much higher than if they enter 76. For 3 the chance they want "three blind mice" is extremely small.
And by tradition these pages are very similar to dab pages. Splitting them to a page about the number per se and the dab entries would not be a great advance, though for the smaller number is may be worth considering.
Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
My personal opinion, having read the above:
  • All mathematical properties that are not obvious. (73 is obviously odd, but not so obviously prime.)
  • Scientific phenomena, if either:
    • The number is an integral part of its definition, and the subject has its own article; (e.g. elements) or
    • There is at least a paragraph somewhere else on Wikipedia discussing the number as it relates to the subject.
  • Significant cultural references - but as Rich Farmbrough said, limit them for smaller numbers. Significant might mean if the subject receives at least a paragraph of discussion somewhere else on Wikipedia.
  • Subjects including the number in the title can be included in the See Also section, as long as there aren't too many. Years should be the first entry in that section.
A disambiguation page could then list every page with the number in the title. I don't think the number page should be used for this, since in many cases the other things have no numerical connection - for example telephone area codes are not numbers, they're sequences of digits. Therefore, they don't belong in articles describing the number. -- YPNYPN 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "all mathematical properties" is a reasonable position, even if constrained by non-obviousness and sourcability. E.g. in the case of 73, OEIS lists 14717 different sequences that it belongs to, a large fraction of which can be interpreted as different properties that it has. That's too many to put in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not all of the 14717 sequences are actually meaningful. We don't need to mention that it's a natural number, a nonnegative number, an odd number, a number which is the reverse of another number, prime, the greatest prime factor of 73, the lowest prime factor of 73 (just from the first ten sequences shown). Once you prune out all of the useless stuff, there probably won't be too many to include. Of course, for numbers like 1, some will have to be omitted. -- YPNYPN 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe that there is any consistent category of information that we should on principle forbid about any particular number or set of numbers, it is too hard to be sure when some truly interesting example will pop up, or some truly interesting meta-item; what is not of any interest in isolation sometimes can be of considerable interest in combination with a few other trivia.
Consider: How interesting 10 is; 10=2*5 (Great biiig hairy deal!!!) Ah, but also 10=2+3+5 (yaaawn! So what?) Well, that is the sum of all the primes between the two prime factors of ten! Yeah? That justifies putting it into a WP article? Wellll, OK, but 10 is one of only four such positive integers, and this has not yet been proved...
What I recommend instead is that anyone who finds some item of trivia that seems to have no merit in the list should delete it and in the talk page explain why. If there is a strong objection, replace it, possibly stating the case more explicitly. Not everyone has to find every entry fascinating. The very subject of interesting numbers leaves most people numb, but fascinates others. We value a degree of consistency of course, but it would impoverish us if we were slaves to its most extreme forms. JonRichfield (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

−999[edit]

−999 has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical years again[edit]

I'm proposing the deletion of these sections. I have described them as "one of the least interesting and least relevant sections on WP". I'm not sure that Arthur Rubin agrees.

I went ahead and did away this section on the 17 article but was reverted by Arthur who says "yes, it is relevant. It's a quasi-disambiguation page" and above he suggests that these sections link to the years listed since they are, he argues, "modified 'See also' sections". On the other hand, Arthur has replied that they would belong at 18 (disambiguation) and "Unless you want to write that, they belong at some article named '18'." So I think we can come to some agreement.

How did these integer articles end up being "quasi-disambiguation" pages in the first place? Why would someone be at 18 (number) if what they really wanted was a year? The only reason I can guess is that they got sent there from the 18 AD article. The hat notes at the year articles send reader to the number articles "for other uses".

So you're looking for 2018 or maybe 18 BC and somehow you end up at 18 then you're sent to 18 (number) and you have to then go to the Historical years section to find a link to the article you're really after. It's more that a little convoluted and it doesn't even work for all years since not every number article has this section and not all of the sections that do exist link to the year articles. It seems to me an example of very poor organisation. The solution I'd propose is to fix the hat note at the year articles.

The hat note in question is produced by the template {{year dab}}. Interestingly at this template's talk page a related issue was brought up a while ago where JHunterJ says "Number pages are (correctly) categorized as Category:Integers. They are not disambiguation pages. If other Wikipedia articles are still ambiguous with the title (not just related to the number), a disambiguation page is needed for 'other uses'." Obviously, I agree with him. 18 (number) should be about the number, disambiguation belongs elsewhere.

The number articles should deal with the numbers. Years are not relevant to the topic in question. Yes, these years belong at some article named 18 ... but, I say, not an article named 18 (number). Well, as for 18 (disambiguation), it exists (redirects to eighteen) but if a specific disambiguation page doesn't exist for a given number let the hat note at the year article do the disambiguation (since that's the page with no bracketed qualifications). It probably won't be difficult since the template already exists.

Arthur, what do you think?JIMp talk·cont 09:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd have though it should be under the year if anywhere. There are a lot of places where they say 'in this year' and refer to things two or three centuries ago so even by that reckoning the historical year section doesn't fulfil any real purpose as it only refers to 18 BC, 18 AD, 1918, and 2018 and I can't see a good reason to list all the others either. If they looked up 18 nd meant a year they should end up on the year article and be directed there by a see also if it is very common. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see your point. However, with the (relatively recent) exceptions of 8 and 9, the disambiguations are attached to the number page. I still think they should be included, but if consensus here is against inclusion, they should be dropped consistently in all number articles from (at least) 10 through 99. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1 to 7 are exceptions also. Yes, the disambiguations are currently attached to the number page but note that for 41 out of the hundred numbers from 0 to 99 already have a specific x (disambiguation) page so for 41% of these the disambiguations attached to the number pages are sort of redundant. Of course, disrupting the status quo can at time cause problems but I don't think that this is one of those times. The disambiguations are attached to the number page, yes, but I don't think they should be. Where no specific disambiguation page exists we could either create one or just let the hat note of the year article do the disambiguation. JIMp talk·cont 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of disambiguation, the current situation is a bit of a mess. Two thirds of the spelt-out integers from zero to twenty redirect to the number article and (except for 14) there exists a separate disambiguation page. For the other third the spelt-out integer is the disambiguation page with the x (disambiguation) redirecting there except 17 (disambiguation) and 20 (disambiguation) which don't exist and 6 (disambiguation) which is another disambiguation page for six.

0. Zero redirects to 0 (number)' and a separate 0 (disambiguation) article exists.
  1. One redirects to 1 (number) and a separate 1 (disambiguation) article exists.
  2. Two redirects to 2 (number) and a separate 2 (disambiguation) article exists.
  3. Three redirects to 3 (number) and a separate 3 (disambiguation) article exists.
  4. Four redirects to 4 (number) and a separate 4 (disambiguation) article exists.
  5. Five redirects to 5 (number) and a separate 5 (disambiguation) article exists.
  6. Six is a disambiguation page but a separate 6 (disambiguation) article exists.
  7. Seven redirects to 7 (number) and a separate 7 (disambiguation) article exists.
  8. Eight redirects to 8 (number) and a separate 8 (disambiguation) article exists.
  9. Nine redirects to 9 (number) and a separate 9 (disambiguation) article exists.
  10. Ten is the disambiguation page, 10 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  11. Eleven is the disambiguation page, 11 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  12. Twelve is the disambiguation page, 12 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  13. Thirteen redirects to 13 (number) and a separate 13 (disambiguation) article exists.
  14. Fourteen redirects to 14 (number) but no separate 14 (disambiguation) article exists.
  15. Fifteen redirects to 15 (number) and a separate 15 (disambiguation) article exists.
  16. Sixteen redirects to 16 (number) and a separate 16 (disambiguation) article exists.
  17. Seventeen is the disambiguation page and no separate 17 (disambiguation) article exists.
  18. Eighteen is the disambiguation page, 18 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  19. Nineteen redirects to 19 (number) and a separate 19 (disambiguation) article exists.
  20. Twenty is the disambiguation page and no separate 20 (disambiguation) article exists.

It seems to me that there can only be two logical solutions to this. Either all the spelt-out numbers should redirect to the number article and there should be a separate x (disambiguation) page (as with Zero, One, Two, etc.) or they all should be the disambiguation page with x (disambiguation) redirecting to them (as with Ten, Eleven, Twelve, etc.) The first approach seems the best (also the easiest). If you type in the word, you're most likely after the number, also the "disambiguation" in the title makes it clear what the page is. JIMp talk·cont 07:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone and fixed them all up. I also went and checked the spelt-out numbers up to two hundred and all those which existed redirected to the number page except Sixty-six. JIMp talk·cont 08:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on Roman Numerals[edit]

Hi there, I just thought that your WikiProject should look after the article on Roman numerals, thank you. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

See Talk:1000000000 (number)#Requested move. (I don't know if these are automatically included.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages revisited[edit]

There is a move request under way suggesting that 10 (disambiguation) be moved over the redirect Ten (disambiguation). An alternative suggestion is that Ten become the disambiguation page. Meanwhile Eleven which had been redirecting to 11 (number) (since the January cleanup mentioned above) was recently rerouted to 11 (disambiguation). Perhaps these are better ways of doing things but if this is true for ten and/or eleven, what about twelve, what about three, what about forty-seven? I can think of no good reason to treat ten, eleven, nineteen, sixty-six, seven, etc. differently. Unless there is a good reason forthcoming, I don't believe they should be. JIMp talk·cont 10:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change[edit]

Please see Template talk:Infobox number#Factorization. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template reorganization[edit]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 3#Template:Numbers (0s) for a discussion which should have been made after a discussion here, on the reorganization of the "Numbers" templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

number vs. year[edit]

Huh? When I go to 1 article, it has the following note: This article is about the year 1. For the number see 1 (number). For other uses, see 1 (disambiguation).
It should be other way round. The first meaning of "1" is number: [[5]] does not even have anything year-related in it. Maybe there is more need for year articles than number articles, but still it is not right. 85.217.43.203 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be counterintuitive, but to avoid arguments as to whether which is primary for, say, 500, 1500, or 2000, it seems best to have a simple guideline: Years are primary, numbers are not. I could go with the reverse, if someone wants to change all Wikipedia pages to change n to n (year) and n (number) to n. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there probably is quite little to tell about for example number 1473. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
But there may still be a link to 1473 (number) (which would then redirect to 1000 (number).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

prime infoboxes[edit]

An IP editor is changing all the infoboxes for primes from "prime = yes" to "prime = nth". I believe the question of whether this should be done should be discussed in a central location. As the IP has edited all primes up to 229, this seems a good location for discussing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Update growers?[edit]

See WP:NUM#Growers; shouldn't we update this to the current number set? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion (single digits)[edit]

See Talk:1 (number)#Requested move for a discussion of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Numbers in sports, and other major revisions of number articles[edit]

@Ego White Tray: Would you please discuss your major revision of number article format and content on this page; specifically, no category of information (such as retired sports jersey numbers) should be completely removed from Wikipedia, without some consensus. I don't mind moving information between "n (number)" and "n (disambiguation)", even without consensus; I do mind elimination of information without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, nearly everything in it was trivial. The question to ask is, are people reading about the number 3 looking for this information - for most of the sports entries, the answer is a resounding no. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A reasonable approach. Do you want to propose specific changes in WP:WikiProject Numbers to reflect that, and see if we can reach consensus. I follow a number of guidelines which I consider absurd, because I recognize there is consensus for them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. The "flagship article" 12 (number) has some really stupid entries, such as "12 is the number of the French department Aveyron". If that is a valid entry, you could fill 20 pages listing departments, divisions and districts numbered 12, both real and fictional. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename several number articles[edit]

See Talk:1 (number)#Requested move. -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Also see #Move discussion (single digits) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Number articles is not a counting game[edit]

When I visit number articles, I see pages full of trivial crap. Even the "flagship article" 12 (number) has some really stupid entries, such as "12 is the number of the French department Aveyron". If that is a valid entry, you could fill 20 pages listing departments, divisions and districts numbered 12, both real and fictional. The inclusion criteria listed on the Wikiproject even says that every single number mentioned in the Bible deserve mention on a number article - are you kidding me? I suggest that we delete the entire section and replace it with this simple idea: "Imagine that you want to learn about this number. Is this something that you would want to know?" Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted the French Departments out, also. I think we need to establish consensus for removal, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I opened an RfC on this issue (what information should be included) a few months ago, but only a few people responded and there didn't seem to be much of a consensus. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Hundred (word)"[edit]

Hundred (word) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) has been proposed to be merged into 100 (number) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views), see talk:100 (number) for the discussion -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

(Sorry about the delay. This is the first time I've had a chance to edit Wikipedia other than from an IPhone, for some time.)

An editor has been adding links to:

to many (small) positive integers. Is there anything useful there? I haven't had time to check, except that the last had absolutely no useful information on "1". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor has been notified; it seems he/she only had time to touch 1–7 this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I started editing and adding External links on the numbers, 1 to 7. Are the links useful? Well, they might be useful to me, I do not know, if the link can be useful to you, and the other, Cats in the box. But I can check on the copyright status of these links, if you would like? 66.213.15.238 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2719[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 2719 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not asserted; it says it's the largest known odd number ....

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also proposing it be moved to 2719 (number), if not deleted. See Talk:2719#Requested move for the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant RfC:[edit]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years PamD 14:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)