# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers

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.

## Numbers

All of the Wikipedia pages about numbers end in (number). For example, the page about the number 7 is 7 (number). It should be called 7. The page 7 is about the year 7 AD. That is not logical because 7 usually refers to the number 7 instead of the year 7. When people talk about the year 7, they say, "7 AD." Therefore, 7 should be moved to 7 AD and 7 (number) should be moved to 7. A similar thing should be done with all numbers. That would make more sense. Why do all of the number pages end in (number)? Timo3 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All years below 2070 have articles. Most numbers above 300 have no article. Few people would probably expect 2015 to be about the number. The current system is simple and consistent: "X" is about a year and "X (number)" is about a number. Mixed systems would be possible, for example:
• If X < 100 then "X" is about the number.
• If 100 ≤ X ≤ 1000 then "X" is a disambiguation page.
• If 1000 < X then "X" is about the year.
Maybe a mix like this would match WP:PRIMARYTOPIC better but I like the consistency where editors and templates don't have to know detailed rules to make correct links. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We could just move the numbers under 1000. Then, 1 to 999 will be numbers, and 1 AD to 999 AD will be years. However, 1000 will be a year, and 1000 (number) will be a number. 0 should definitely be a number because there was no year 0. Some numbers greater than 1000 could also be moved. For example, 1000000 usually refers to the number, so 1000000 (number) should be moved to 1000000. Timo3 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As much as I would love to support this, there is a great deal of inertia behind it, as you can see at Talk:1 for example. The main problem is that such a move, although it would make sense, would break rather too many links. But to me, four-digit positive integers from 1000 to some reasonable date in the future should be about the year. (Currently after 2069 they're redirects: perhaps this is a little close, but 3000 at the most should be uncontroversial.) After all, 10000 and 106 are more numbers than years. Anything below 1000 needs a CE or AD for me to think of it as a year. (But at the very least, I think we can already make 0 the number.) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Timo, I would support the move from "x (number)" to just "x", for every number, simply because it's logical. 2016 as a year is just one application of the number 2016. Why favor years over any other applications of numbers? It might look like it makes sense when talking about a number like 2016 because it's the current year, but looking at the big picture, it's one number in the sea of infinity. Why do we favor years, and not telephone numbers, or mile market on a particular highway or anything else that can be numbered?
This can be accomplished in multiple steps:
• first redirect all the numbers "n" to "n (year)" or "n AD", or "n CE".
• then fix all the links that used to point to "n" to the new name.
• then rename all the number article from "n (number)" to just "n".
• then fix all the links that used to point to "n (number)" to just "n".
I disagree about having a mixed solution, where some numbers would be numbers, and some would be years. We need consistency.
On the other hand, when randomly browsing wikipedia, kids are more likely to type "n" rather than "n (number)", which will increase the exposure of these articles to opportunistic vandalism by immature minds who just don't get that one might want an article about a number. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
We should have all year articles end in AD and all number articles be numbers. Then, it will be consistent. By the way, the reason why most numbers above 300 have no article is because there are infinitely many numbers above 300. Timo3 22:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think there is merit in both the view that by default a string of digits is a number, and that there is a lack of notability in the 1000-2999 range, where dates are the more likely target. Since either alone is ambiguous, I think both classes of article should be suffixed: i.e. 1066_(year) vs 1066_(number). This keeps the article names consistent and unambiguous. Disabmiguation can then be used to pick an appropriate target, and can be flexible depending on what we consider to be the more likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I have commented to this effect in the RFC on Talk:1 Almonaster (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

## Fractions

Why do not fractions like 1/3 and 1/4 have their own articles? Gulumeemee (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

## History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system to be moved to History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)