Talk:List of numbers/Deletion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pages proposed for deletion

The following pages have been proposed for deletion. Material which has been considered relevant has been copied elsewhere. Factorizations of numbers are at factorization, atomic numbers at List of elements by number. Minor mathematical properties (prime number, composite number etc.) and cultural trivia ("101 appears in the movie title 101 Dalmatians") that remain are either considered irrelevant or discussed elsewhere. Please comment if you see some information that you think deserves to be kept.

Pages proposed to be kept

The following number pages have been edited and are considered valuable. Please comment if you think they should be deleted.

Information elements to keep

From this discussion arose a concensus that led to the creation of WikiProject Numbers.

From the pages 100-112, the following elements should be kept in number articles, preferably in a standardized template or list. --User:Docu

  • link to previous natural number and following natural number
    • keep -- User:Docu
    • keep Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Infrogmation 04:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for numbers beyond some threshold. I would not say twelve unless asked. -- Takanoha 14:30, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if there already is article on previous or following number PrimeFan 21:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Del arte 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • divisors
    • keep -- User:Docu
    • keep Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Infrogmation 04:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, except for somehow interesting cases -- Takanoha 14:30, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep for highly composite numbers and abundant numbers PrimeFan 21:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if significantly longer than factor list, or if important to a special mathematical property of the number Del arte 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep only if points to a special property (highly composite, perfect). Kevin Saff 22:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • main highways with articles in Wikipedia and the same number
    • there are a few candidates
      • keep -- User:Docu
        • 66, definitely -- Wiwaxia 03:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • keep Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • there are many
      • delete -- User:Docu
      • keep U.S. Interstate and U.S. Highway, decide on case by case basis for other countries PrimeFan 21:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Del arte 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • 101: course number of basic or entry-level courses
    • Keep -- User:Docu, Wiwaxia 03:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Kevin Saff 22:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Link to year
    • keep -- User:Docu, Wiwaxia 03:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Infrogmation 04:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep if number lower than present year PrimeFan 21:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Del arte 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Cultural links: any other links to articles, cultural or mathematical material mentioning the number, from 101 Dalmations for 101 to 42 for the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
    • keep - it's a useful index, as described in one of the comments below. Jamesday 05:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Infrogmation 04:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep PrimeFan 21:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, things of this sort paint a portrait of the "personality" of the number Del arte 21:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Kevin Saff 22:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I endorse this template proposal. To ellaborate on which highways are worth listing I propose this standard: for each country, the highways that go through at least two states, (or provinces). For product models worth listing, I propose this standard: only model numbers which have been influential on future products (i.e., the 8086 chip) or are important for historical reasons (the T-72 tank). User:PrimeFan
Well .. that wasn't exactly a template, but it could be a start for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers (some pages are much further though) -- User:Docu

VfD discussion

  • Most of the numbers listed on List of numbers (not the list itself). Before you scream bloody murder, take a look at the actual information content. Most of these are trivia, such as "one hundred one appears in the movie 101 Dalmatians", and the little information that is there is already duplicated elsewhere (atomic numbers) or should be (factorisation table). These "articles" tend to become completely unencyclopedic free-for-alls where everyone can add every occurance of a number that is somehow verifiable and true. The ones we should keep are those that contain actual history or other useful information, such as zero. But "this is a prime number" (make a list of prime numbers instead) or "this number appears in movie XYZ" is not useful information.—Eloquence
    • Keep, but edit to remove the trivia (possibly after a full discssion of what does and does not constitute "trivia"). Besides which, any proposal to remove "most" of a set of pages cannot be decisive, since no definition of "most" is included. Andy Mabbett 20:57, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've provided a definition. If I list all individual number pages we'll be arguing about them for months. This is a case where it's orders of magnitude more efficient to pick a trusted sysop and let them wade through the crap and delete everything that's not worth keeping and merge everything that is, then go through a round of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if that's necessary. I think you agree that much of the information here is useless. So let's do this quick and painlessly. In order to keep the process open, the sysop in question could blank all the pages he wants to delete and do so a couple of days later, so that everyone can check the history first.—Eloquence
        • Much of the trivia isn't bad in itself. And in the case of 101, it provides natural disambiguation for US Highway 101. Several numbers will be important because of religious significance - 3,7,40,666 for Christianity -I couldn't say what numbers for other religions. How would your "chosen sysop" decide? What does it hurt to leave them? Rmhermen 21:13, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
          • I doubt anyone looking for Highway 101 would enter "one hundred one" into the search box. In any case, disambiguation is an altogether different topic -- some of these number pages might become disambiguation pages (although in this specific case I think a short disambig notice on 101 would be more helpful). As for "what's the harm", what's the harm of having articles about my old buddies from high school in Wikipedia? What's the harm of adding dictionary entries? Poetry? It does not serve our purpose as an encyclopedia and in fact harms our reputation and usefulness. See Wikipedia is not.—Eloquence
          • Who would type "one hundred one" looking for US 101? How about someone who keeps seeing that sign in movies and tv but doesn't quite know how to look for it? How about someone who wonders if their is some deeper significance to that number? -- Anonymous User
        • You've mentioned The ones we should keep are those that contain actual history or other useful information,; but that's no definition, Unless you'd now like to define actual history and useful information. "Must" is your word; not mine. Andy Mabbett 21:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • This is a vague common sense recommendation for a sysop who would actually do the job of determining what is useful or what is not for each individual case. In fact it doesn't even need to be done by a sysop, we could all do it collaboratively and blank all pages that are to be deleted.—Eloquence
            • Or we could do it collaboratively by making a new page and inviting people to discuss it there and hopefully come to a consensus. As I'm sure you know, there would be a lot of disagreement about what to delete and what to keep. Giving more decision-making power to one sysop than to anyone else is completely contrary to the wiki philosophy. Your suggestion of blanking the pages first is hardly a meaningful concession to the wiki way: you're sugesting doing the deletions "a couple of days later", giving people little chance to protest before the deletions are done, and pretty much ensuring an angry backlash on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Five days is the bare minimum for discussing even single articles that are listed on Vfd; for a whole bunch of them, the time should be lengthened, if anything, not shortened. Even if the discussion time is lengthened to a something more reasonable, forcing people to go through the edit histories of blanked articles to see what content is being discarded would just make life difficult for them. Of course, any sysop - or any other Wikipedian, for that matter - can go through the number articles and decide what ones they want to go. But instead of blanking the ones they've selected, they could just list them on a single page for all to see. Disputing the list would then require editing only one single page, instead of going through a whole bunch of pages and blanking or unblanking them. If you think that "we'll be arguing about them for months", that should be enough to tell you why your idea is a bad one. Trying to force the deletions through by unconventional means won't make the arguments go away; it will only exacerbate them. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • I will proceed as described. Most of the pages in question have no meaningful content whatsoever.—Eloquence
                • I would like the chance to judge that for myself, and to allow others to have that chance, too. To save myself and others the bother of having to hunt through the page histories to see the content, I will revert your blankings. -- Oliver P. 06:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                  • You have not suggested a practical alternative, so your reverts are unacceptable. Checking the histories doesn't take more time than reverting my edits.—Eloquence
                  • Well, I thought that reverting your edits would only need to be done once. Checking the histories of blank articles would have to be done several times: once for each interested observer. And I have suggested a far more practical method than blanking pages. Namely to list those pages you don't like on a single page. That way, people can see at a glance what pages are being discussed. My reversions were perefectly acceptable, being merely to re-establish the state of the pages before this dispute started. Your reversions back again are nothing less than edit warring, and therefore a serious breach of Wikiquette. I will not repeat my reversions, since I have no wish to get involved in an edit war, but I would ask any uninvolved sysop reading this to revert back and protect the pages as a more civilised alternative. -- Oliver P. 07:07, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                    • Sigh. There's almost nothing worth salvaging on these pages. All this does is prolong the inevitable. I would appreciate it if you would trust me a little more.—Eloquence
  • You might want to edit the numbers one through ten, or develop a WikiProject to make it clearer if you'd delete everything past polygon at Eight (current version or not. -- User:Docu
  • Keep all which aren't (as good as) empty when time is up on this nomination. Onebyone 03:27, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I now vote keep all. Any individual bit of trivia clearly isn't worth an article, but once you can say 3 or 4 things about a number, you have the beginnings of a worthwhile resource on the properties of that number. But if 2 people each have 2 faintly interesting things to say, then that article will never get written if we keep deleting number articles with only 2 bits of trivia on them. Normally in this situation my inclination is to merge the articles into a single article "properties of numbers" and redirect the individual titles there, so that would also be fine by me. Onebyone 17:48, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree wit you completely, Onebyone. I've got little to say about 67. But I know their's got to be somewhere a sufficeintly large group of people to whom that number means something. -- Anonymous User
  • Keep. Some are usefull articles already; many others are stubs with potential for further development. -- Infrogmation 18:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • To be counted as a "stub" there must be some non-trivial information. "120 is the number after 119 and before 121" is not useful, nor are basic mathematical properties such as "is a prime number" (just wait until someone creates a Primebot, that will boost our article count) or "occurs in the movie title XYZ". I've started with the blanking of non-useful articles, but I won't accept any ultimatums. Any help would be appreciated.—Eloquence
  • Why not just merge the articles on numbers greater than 99 into pages on blocks of ten integers each, like an article called Numbers from 100 to 109? Denelson83 06:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That's the way it had been done previously. Personally I'd kept them together, until they have the size of Number 111 -- User:Docu
  • Keep and edit. Blanking should not be done unless the article contains content that is so sensitive that keeping it could damage wikipedia, eg., libel, copyright breaches, unless there is a clear consensus behind the blanking and here there clearly isn't, let alone a consensus on their deletion. FearÉIREANN 04:30, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit. I agree. A friend of mine works in an advertising consulting firm, and is an aspiring novelist in his time off. For people like him, it is extremely valuable to be able to look up somewhere in one place all the cultural associations of a specific number. You might not want to release a product called 'Tonic 88' to a Jewish community, for example. Nor would you want to draw a graphic novel showing a sign for US Highway 101 on an Interstate shield. -- User:PrimeFan
    • Good point. I had thought of that one. FearÉIREANN 22:03, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a near limitless number of cultural associations with numbers. The most important ones can of course be retained, but stuff like "101 appears in the movie title xy" or "250 is the number of years since .." is completely bogus. Bullet point lists encourage these games of free association. We should go through all numbers and leave cultural meanings of widely reognized significance in place, and remove all the pointless trivia. —Eloquence 22:12, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • If its so limiltless, why is their next to nothing for 67? -- Anonymous User
  • Keep. Only a couple of weeks ago I did not know that this excellent resource existed. With articles like this, Wikipedia shows itself capable of achieving a much greater degree of completeness and thoroughness than is possible of a paper encyclopedia. As more people become aware of these articles they will grow to be more usefu. Del arte 17:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand taht as the original creator of the pages one hunderd one to one hundred two I'm entitled to one vote, regardless of the other eligibility requirements. 13:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kevin Saff 22:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Number articles are useless. Some could be redirects or disambig. pages, but there is no need for an article about a number. 101 being a disabig. page pointing to the 101 highway and 101 dalmations, would be an example of a number page worth keeping. Prime numbers should be listed in the Prime number article. As Eloquence said numbers with important cutural meaning can be kept, this may include discussing 7 as an lucky number, etc. —Noldoaran (Talk) 03:07, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion

I still vote to keep all the below above. We have great numbers of shorter, less informative articles. I can see no harm in keeping them. -- Infrogmation 17:21, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC) Edit by Oliver P. after moving text

I will say this much, if they are kept then you can be quite sure that User:Primebot is not far in the future, maybe I will even write it myself to make the point. You can have an infinite number of these pages. They are NOT articles.—Eloquence
"Oh my God, their gonna make an article for each number!" Gimme a break. Most people have some sort of idea where the threshhold is. I only went to 114, though I can see value to going as high as 1001. But unlike you, Eloquence, I am not gonna blank out pages if someone disagrees with me about where the threshold is. If they got something to say about 1002, more power to them. I'll listen to what they have to say. -- Anonymous User, 141.217. ...
Hmmm. Creating pages to prove a point on VfD. Wasn't that part of the reason you banned BuddhaInside? ;) Angela. 06:24, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
You must be confusing me with someone else. I banned BuddhaInside because he vandalized the Main Page.—Eloquence
This is ridiculous - keep them - many of them might seem trivial to you, but looking up the facts about various numbers is potentially interesting and useful. 19:32, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you wholeheartedly, User:PrimeFan
As do I. Also, they're useful for people who know the number but not quite where to look up what it means. A lot of times people use numbers as shorthand without bothering to check if everyone listening knows what is meant by the number. Below I list a few things I've heard over the years where I couldn't or didn't ask what was meant by the number. Sometimes I had some idea, other times I was completely clueless. User:Robert_Happelberg

  • Singer: "Your love is a one eight seven to heaven".
  • Photographer: "For portraits, I like a 50, without flash, wide aperture."
  • Carpenter: "When you're done with this, just take that 55 and set it over there."
  • Bookie: "You owe me a twenty."
  • U.S. Marine recruit: "I had my seven eighty two squared away, but he wouldn't get off my six."
  • Lawyer: "They have no case. It's a clear fifth."
  • Rabbi: "Thanks for the one hundred twenty talents."
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At best, such explanations could be provided in an overview article elsewhere, and the number articles could link or redirect to them.—Eloquence

There's no such number as One hundred one anyway so delete them all for that reason and because they are not articles, and for slippery slope arguments like the infinite number of these that could exist. Redirecting any that are created to something like number might be an easier solution than listing them on VfD every time they occur. Angela. 06:24, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for completing the original series of articles from one through twenty last April. At that time there was a discussion as to the sillines of having articles for such dull numbers as twenty one, so we decided enough was enough, and stopped there. Some meant that even numbers over ten should not have articles. Looking at the number articles now, 8 months later, it is pretty obvious that there is no uninteresting number; see one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine for a good example. Wikipedia is not paper, and Wikipedia is surely the best way humankind has yet devised of collecting all sorts of interesting (and encyclopedic) properties of numbers. Really. So my concerns in this matter are two:

  • Make sure the spelling of these articles is consistent (i.e. use one hundred and one, presumably)
  • Make sure the layout of the articles is consistent. There really is a need for a standard layout.

-- Egil

It is questionable whether anyone would look up "taxicab numbers" or "Hardy-Ramanujan number" by entering the search term "one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine". Interesting properties of numbers, or sets of numbers, should have their own articles, but the number pages should at best redirect to them. —Eloquence
No, but if they see a reference to 1729 and don't understand it, they might conceivably enter the search term "1729". They ought then to be sent to the right place by the article for the year 1729AD... Onebyone 17:57, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Next time I make an amazon order, I'll be getting a copy of The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers to use as a source to improve various number articles. If anyone has a copy already, or is near an academic library, they could do likewise. IIRC it doesn't have articles on all the numbers in the 110s, and it lists 48 as being the first non-interesting natural number. Onebyone 17:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Onebyone, take a look at: What's Special About This Number? GUllman 22:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've got that book! (Well, technically it belongs to my brother, but I'm in denial about that fact.) It's nice, but not very academic, because it's written for people who don't know much maths. A lot of the entires consist of just a single equation, without comment, leaving me scratching my head and thinking, "But why are we supposed to find that interesting?" However, many of the entries are interesting, so I'll go through it at some point and se what can be used... -- Oliver P. 02:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would like to denounce User:Eloquence's rude and sneaky tactics. His rude edit warring has already been mentioned here, but did you know that he sneakily blanked out the article on 120 - 129, put "blanking per VfD" in the edit summary but FAILED TO LIST IT ON THIS DELETION PAGE!!??? Luckily someone had sense to undo the blanking. Apparently User:Eloquence thought he could get away with deleting that page if he got the votes to delete the others. User:PrimeFan

Denounce all you want. I announced the blanking on the VfD page, and the pages would only have been deleted if consensus had been reached there. This was a way to have a reasonably open process while avoiding the kind of endless discussion with people of questionable intelligence that this page is devolving into.—Eloquence
It's definately worth keeping pages that describe the properties and interesting facts about numbers, as well as redirects / disambigs from things like 'fifth', 'the fifth' etc to relevant pages - I can't comprehend the passion for deleting perfectly good articles that seems to be prevailing here. 22:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to the deletion of pages about numbers for which the only available information is trivial, using the definition of "trivial" proposed by Anthony DiPierro below (the fact that it is a palindrome, its prime factorisation, and the preceding and following numbers). I'll extend that to cover all numbers for which the only available information is a set of numerical properties with no reference to any discussion of those properties in the existing literature. That would take care of the "bot" objection, I think. -- Oliver P. 02:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for naming

Since many interesting numbers are comparatively large, may I suggest a new naming convention for numbers. The current one is pretty cumbersome for larger numbers, and also quite error prone due to spelling issues. Instead of forty-two, let us just use 42 (number). With redirects for the old versions installed where appropriate, and markup as [[42 (number)|]], which will appear as 42. -- Egil 12:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vote on naming

  • [[One hundred forty-two]] (no change): Jiang (haha)
One vote
Six votes
22 (number) votes
Three votes
Five votes

Vote on inclusion

Do we want all number articles, some number articles, or none at all? The discussion centers on whether the cultural associations of a number and various mathematical properties are notable enough to deserve listing, or whether this makes the potential scope of content for each number article near limitless and thereby goes beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- 10:58, 22 Feb 2004 . User:Eloquence.

  • Keep Give stubs a chance to develop: Optim 19:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC), User:PrimeFan, User:Egil, Del_arte, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, BL, JDR (notable too POV; association context important), GUllman, UtherSRG, Jamesday, Jeoth, Ryan_Cable, Kevin Saff, mav (I think they are kinda neat), Tuf-Kat 18:15, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC), Arthur George Carrick 02:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC); Toby Bartels: small articles may be combined together -- for example, a number notable only for being a Mersenne prime can redirect to Mersenne prime -- but this is (potentially) only temporary, until more info about that number is written, and the redirect should never be deleted;
    • Strongly against: —Eloquence 10:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC) (this is not about "stubs", it's about articles which only contain meaningless information)
  • No Wikipedia articles about numbers (move/redirect all info to other pages):
  • No Wikipedia articles about numbers except those with notable mathematical or cultural properties (meanings as opposed to associations), no bullet point format for meanings, no dictionary definitions, no auto-generated articles: —Eloquence, Anthony DiPierro, llywrch, Angela, Kokiri, Tompagenet, silsor, Texture, Faradn
  • No Wikipedia articles about numbers except English language numerals (move/redirect all info to other pages): Anthony DiPierro
  • Make a separate project: Numberpedia
    • It's an idea I think I'll bring to the meta. --Ryan and/or Mero
      • An interesting idea, but you have to keep in mind that the number articles foster the creation and growth of Wikipedia articles on abstract mathematical concepts. The article on the number 496 came before the article on harmonic divisor number, the stub on 703 at 700 came before the article on Kaprekar numbers, etc. Wikipedia provides the perfect place to study how different mathematical properties interact on specific numbers (and I believe that the numbers 1 - 1024 contain the greatest level of mathematical property interaction) and how the mathematical properties interact with the cultural properties of the numbers. If a Numberpedia is made, not only would the number articles have to be copied over, but also the mathematical concept articles. PrimeFan 22:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • We already have too many separate projects. Optim 19:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
User:OnebyOne is absolutely right that we need to give these articles a chance to develop before rushing to delete them. Every number up to about 1000 has notable mathematical or cultural properties, but each article needs to start somehow. A dictionary definition is one way to start (and every article needs to have a dictionary definition at its core anyway). User:PrimeFan
What about two billion, one hundred forty seven million, four hundred eighty three thousand, six hundred forty seven? I vote for No Wikipedia articles about numbers, but I add that all non-trivial information must be moved before deletion. Trivial information is hereby defined as the fact that it is a palindrome, the preceeding and proceeding numbers, factorization (for numbers less than 10^3), and the fact that it is a composite number (but any primes already listed should be moved somewhere). As that information is moved, it should be marked as such or deleted. When only moved or trivial information exists, then the number can be deleted, except for base numbers (1-19, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, hundred, thousand, etc) which should be kept or moved to wictionary. Any disambiguation information should be moved to the year, except in cases where the disambiguation would likely be spelled out. So, that's my long-winded vote. Anthony DiPierro
Who are you to define what is and what isn't trivia? I'm not one to define what trivia is either. Factorization and palindromicity are extremely important to me. On the other hand, Cullen and Pell numbers aren't quite so important to me. Numbers occurring in the Bible or in Star Trek don't seem so important to me either, but try arguing that to someone who believes in either one of those two sources (and they can be extremely fanatical about it). If I imposed my view of triviality on others, I would delete the entire article on George W. Bush and replace it with simply "Puppet of Dick Cheney". The article on Dick Cheney is far more important, in my view. The point is, no one should be imposing their view of what trivia is on others. User:PrimeFan
I wasn't defining what is and what isn't trivia. I was merely stating my definition of "trivial" for the purpose of my suggestion. No more. Factorization of numbers less than 10^3 and palindromicity may be extremely important to you, but they are also extremely easy to calculate on your own. There's no need for that information in an encyclopedia, any more than there is a need for the solution to "52+78". I don't know what Cullen and Pell numbers are, but couldn't they be listed on a page called "cullen numbers" and "pell numbers," for those that are already contained on these pages? As for numbers in the bible or in Star Trek, those can be listed on the appropriate bible or star trek pages. Or maybe they could be eliminated. I'd leave that up to the people who care about the star trek and bible pages. As for your George W. Bush comment, my version of trivial is much more natural than that. My point is that factorization and palindromicity are easily calculated. Therefore an encylopedia entry, beyond explaining how to calculate factorization and palindromicity, adds no information whatsoever. Perhaps my use of the term "trivial" was inappropriate, but that's precisely why I defined the term. Anthony DiPierro 23:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I think I understand where you're coming from a little better. I agree with you that 52 + 78 = 130 is not so important, unless there was something special shared by 52 and 78. I think sums of consecutive primes are important. Consecutive composites, I don't know, but that doesn't even apply to your 52 + 78 example. I think factorization is important because it's like a fingerprint of the number. When you take mathematical facts like that about a number and put them together on a number page, you're creating a page about an entity with a personality all its own. And yes, that might duplicate information elsewhere, but we're probably already duplicating a lot of information in the pages about important historical figures. For example, the pages on Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin all ought to mention their historic meeting at Yalta. Would it be better to make a page on Yalta meeting, excise the Yalta information in those three articles and replacing it with a link to the Yalta meeting article? I think probably not. I advocate treating numbers as persons. Integers up to a thousand are celebrities, and deserve their own articles. PrimeFan 19:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If you're going to have pages on numbers, then including factorization makes sense. But I don't think numbers belong in an encyclopedia. The rest of my argument basically follows from that base assumption, which I don't think we can do much more than vote on and if enough people want numbers, then we keep them, and it looks like that's what we're gonna have. Again, once we have a numbers page, might as well put just about anything in them. Anthony DiPierro 11:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Egil's renaming proposal. The main reason is that I see this case as being no different from any other case of disambiguation. The year 42 and the number 42 are identical in both speech and writing, so to disambiguate by writing the former in Arabic numerals and the latter in words is arbitrary and counterintuitive. The standard Wikipedia practice is to disambiguate with a parenthetical word or phrase, so I see no reason not to do that here. A second reason is that for numbers over a hundred, it would save a lot of time writing out the links! A third reason is that it would remove the silly debate over whether American English or British English should be preferred. If Egil's proposal is accepted, I hereby volunteer to move all the articles, but you'll need to remind me on my talk page that I've promised this, because otherwise I'll forget... -- Oliver P. 02:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll help move them, if it helps to keep useful content that would otherwise be deleted.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:54, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this style of articles is interesting and usefull, deserving to be in Wikipedia. --Jeoth 21:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:One thousand one.

5 Februrary Vote for Deletion

Rather than add every number known to us, let me put the remaining mess in Wikipedia here at one shot. This is to show those of you who are discussing any single number what level of junk content we are discussing. (feel free to add what I've missed. There are way too many for me to find them all): (A table listing a lot of number articles) And all associated redirects to these numbers like Number 222

  • If we all vote to keep these because for some reason all numbers are sacred then the List of numbers will continue to add pages for no reason to this compendium. I don’t think I even managed to list every one that exists. (Look at this mess and tell me an encyclopedia would include them all. When Wikipedia has to close down to buy more space do you want this to be the reason why?)- Texture 18:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let's say the guys working on the numbers project do every number up to one thousand, and they make each article 10KB long. That's 10MB. Ten years ago, that was a lot. Today, I can put 128MB in my pocket. I believe the number Wikipedians will do next to no articles on numbers beyond one thousand. You have to give people credit. People have common sense. Del arte 19:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I freely toss the issue of storage aside. Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? - Texture 20:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So why aren't you trying to delete the articles on days of the month? As far as I can tell, the article on February 6 merely lists things that happened that day. So how come you're not screaming Wikipedia_is_not about those articles? Why aren't you trying to delete Lists of People by name? Those are merely collections of internal links, and yet you're not screaming Wikipedia_is_not about those. The reason must be that you are a bully and you think that just because I'm humble that I must also be a doormat. Well, I'm not a doormat. You'll have to get your deletion power trip jollies somewhere else, but looking at your user page, you already are in plenty of other places. NNumber articles are useful in the same way that day and year articles are, and ieven more so, because they offer correlations and analysis on each individual numbers (the stubs haven't got there yet, but without big bad wolves like User:Eloquence, they stand of chance of getting there). 13:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Storage isn't really an issue. But numbers aren't encyclopedic. Of course, I see how this could be arguable. I mean, I guess you could have an encyclopedia of numbers. I doubt we're going to reach a consensus here. Anthony DiPierro 21:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You might want to look at "Deletion of number pages like one hundred one -> Talk:List of numbers/Deletion" listed on top of this page and move the discussion there. -- User:Docu
Move 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and hundred to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Anthony DiPierro 21:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good suggestion - I agree - Texture 21:06, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. "Follows 100, precedes 102", that's a dictionary, yes. But every good encyclopedia article begins with a dictionary definition. They then follow it with the mathematical properties of the number, its history, its culture, things that add up to what it's even been called its "personality". This kind of an article doesn't belong in a paper encyclopedia for purely practical reasons. But Wikipedia can have this articles, which are thoroughly fascinating and extremely useful, as has already been discussed here. ShutterBugTrekker 21:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
These articles on numbers are a wonderful resource and they belong in an encyclopedia because they draw correlations between each number's mathematical properties. That's something a dictionary shouldn't do, because it's the job of an encyclopedia. Robert Happelberg 22:47, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is being dealt with elsewhere, and is a pretty involved issue - request removal of this list from VfD at this time and refer disucssion to Talk:List of numbers/Deletion. The Fellowship of the Troll 21:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More from VfD

Four hundred and ninety-six - The floodgates to infinty have been opened. Content: " the natural number following four hundred and ninety-five and preceeding four hundred and ninety-seven..." - Texture 18:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The floodgates to infinty have been opened." Gimme a break! This guy clearly has a very low opinion of his fellow Wikipedians. Don't insult our intelligence. The people who've worked on the number articles have a lot more common sense than that. ShutterBugTrekker 21:47, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As a harmonic divisor number and a perfect number, 496 is somewhat unique among numbers. PrimeFan 23:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Del arte 21:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • One hundred twenty - see above - Texture 22:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. But there's no way this is going to get a consensus. See Talk:List_of_numbers/Deletion. I suggest this poll be removed. Anthony DiPierro 22:26, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, give chance to grow. PrimeFan 19:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Del arte 20:48, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Also, User:Texture and User:Eloquence ought to be investigated for violations of Wiki etiquette. Their aggressive bullying is frightening. ShutterBugTrekker 21:55, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nothing special. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Your noise is my signal, Wile: I've often marvelled at the usefulness of having wikipedia pages dedicated to dates and numbers -- especially when memorizing long number sequences! I see no reason why these pages should not exist; storage is not an issue, and they are clearly useful to some people. -- AnonymousFriend

Clearly we'll never get consensus to delete these. Most of them are useless, but then so is the comprehensive gazetteer of the US. At least some of these are fun. I've always considered 1089 a personal friend, myself. Just think, in base 33, it's a round number. -- Jmabel 09:12, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taking action on naming

When will action take place re the naming issue? To many Britons and Australians, the "and" omission is a rather glaring one. When should we enact the results of the above vote? Dysprosia 09:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that we have a volunteer, let's begin :). Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to get a community consensus here first before I begin to avoid a mass of "rv"s ;) Dysprosia 22:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If anyone gives you trouble about moving the number articles, you can direct them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. PrimeFan 23:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Right. I'll start then, when I get some spare moments... Dysprosia 11:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Numbers. -- User:Docu

Hmm, are we using commas, or no commas? 1,423 (number), or 1423 (number)? Anthony DiPierro 21:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would say no commas. The comma vz. full stop as a division between thousands may create confusion for many non-native English speaking people. -- Egil
Definitely no commas. There are at least four standard representations: 1234; 1,234; 1.234; and 1 234 of which the last one is natural to me, but please note that the dividing the numbers is only a typographical convention for readability and memorisation, not a property of the number itself. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:13, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I assume that One hundred forty-two, One hundred and forty-two, Number 142 are to redirect to 142 (number), instead of becoming disambiguation pages between the year and everything else that is on 142 (number). Thus WikiProject Years links the number page as "Alternate uses: see Number 142." -- User:Docu

Yeah, I'd assume so too. Although eventually we need to remove links to one hundred fourty-two. I was only adding disambiguation for the case of titles or other situations using the word, as opposed to the number. It's to be treated like any other case of disambiguation. Anthony DiPierro 23:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A page for the word "one"?

If there is to be a separate page for one as a word (I'm pretty agnostic about that), then all the one stuff in the 1 (number) page must be moved over to this page, otherwise there will be confusion. Can such a division be maintained? -- Egil 10:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I assumed that the information would remain on the page 1 (number) despite the rename, but as Anthony pointed out quite rightly, we didn't explicitly vote on this point, thus I suppose we could try to split the information between the two or duplicate on one, what could be written that way.
I quite strongly resent duplication, duplication of info is a recipie for disaster. If there is to be a one page, then everything being one (including one-ness, all of that) needs to be moved there, and the 1 (number) page would be about more mathemathical issues. One thing is whether such a split is natural, in which case it may be feasible to retain it. Another issue is that for one there is enough material that such a split can be sensible- I would believe that for higher numbers, there usually isn't. So I guess I am landing on the don't split side, with a possible exception for one? -- Egil 11:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I favo(u)r keeping the information on Number_1 (sorry, 1 (number)), the year pages (e.g. 51) already link to the number page for everything, but the year, e.g. "Alternate uses, see Number 51".
Within the number pages, we could bold the links to articles about One (movie), the year AD 1, One (album), the city One, etc, as it's suggested for explicit cross-references within text in the Manual of Style.
Only if there are many, we'd make a separate page for them, e.g. Ten (album) (note the various titles on this page).
Either way, I will be glad to include the solution for this on WikiProject Numbers. -- User:Docu

I thought the whole point of moving the math crap to 1 (number) was to be able to get the useful information out of there. Anthony DiPierro 14:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW - strictly speaking, 1 is not a number, or at least it took a heck of a long time before pedants decided that it was more useful to accept 1 as a number and to move on to other battles. (such as reversion wars) 8-) -- AndrewKepert 22:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The new page One is pretty good, but I claim that it really ought to be at One (disambiguation). One itself should redirect to 1 (number), since that is by far the most common spontaneous link. I have done this move, but I haven't yet redirected One to 1 (number); this is because I don't want to make my change irreversible without admin intervention. And I don't mind if you do reverse my change -- just make sure to properly disambiguate all of the links to One when you do this please! ^_^ OTOH, if nobody reverses my change in a couple of days, then I'll create the redirect. (BTW, if somebody needs admin help to perform a move, then I will help even to do things that I don't like -- as long as they're also reversible.) -- Toby Bartels 02:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah! Sweet Irony! I kind of like the idea that we would have "One" be the only article of these that would be a multiple article. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:05, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
All the links to One seem to be all numerical related. Did I miss/understand something? If it's the disambiguation, can't it be done in the conventional manner? Dysprosia 09:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)