Talk:20 (number)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under mathematics, this article says "21 is the total number of digits on the human body". The disambiguation page for Digit says digits can be fingers and toes. Shouldn't this article say there are 20 digits on the human body?
Just a quick explanation of what I have done here. The headings for 22 to 29 is so that the actual number pages can have redirects to a defined point in this page. AndrewKepert
- The only problem with this, AndrewKepert, is that such a redirect doesn't actually work: the URL used by the browser is not changed by the redirect, and so contains no "#..." element. In other words, it still only points to the top, which is rather confusing if you follow a link to, say, twenty-nine. Perhaps it would be better to also have a heading for twenty itself, below a line explaining which numbers this page (currently) covers. This would make it clearer why the user had been redirected; it would also add an entry for twenty itself in the table of contents [if enabled], and move this into clearer view. (it frequently annoys me that these contents boxes don't appear until the first explicit heading, which can be a long way down the page) Obviously, this policy would then have to be applied to the other number articles that are in this form.
- - IMSoP 22:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- (see also my more general comment on Talk:List of numbers)
-
- I changed the formatting a bit, maybe it's easier to read now. Feel free to modify it.
- BTW I was wondering why Special:Whatlinkshere/Twenty didn't show all the twenty-... redirects. Must be the anchors.
- --User:Docu
- Certainly makes it clearer what's covered if you have the TOC turned on. I'm not sure whether placing the other numbers at a lower level of hierarchy makes sense, though, and it needs a proper introduction at the very top. I was holding back from fiddling until a consistent design had been agreed on, as it will also need to be applied at similar pages such as Thirty, Hundred and so forth. In fact, perhaps we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers template, since the layout of the information on each number is also somewhat variable at present... - IMSoP 23:14, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes I know that it only half-worked -- it was a bit of an experiment that I left in place to draw attention to a problem that could either be fixed by a more creative solution in the current wiki engine, or by tweaking the wiki engine to handle in the obvious way. My workaround solution (aka kludge) to fix the other half was to create links like Twenty-eight#Twenty-eight or more probably Twenty-eight which currently work and degrade gracefully once a page for twenty-eight is created. I think the page in its current form is good. However, since I did the big rearrangement it has attracted interest and the sections have grown to the point where they could be split off. (This was partly my fault for raising "thirty-eight" as being "the first boring number" ... another story.) -- AndrewKepert 02:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-
- In the meantime (before reading above explanation), I had fixed the remaining redirects. I had preferred to see Whatlinkshere working. I suppose the anchor part still works.
- Indeed, it would be nice to have a template. To some extent I followed fourteen. I spent some time building links from the year pages, even if the current format could probably also be improved. BTW 20 would be the part of twenty (currently 20-29) to spin-off, but the current pape is still of readable size. -- User:Docu
