Category talk:Integers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True or false: the sub-categories of this category are useful. (This really isn't necessary because all the integers are put into the category Integers, and so are many of the kinds of numbers Wikipedia has articles for.) 66.245.79.136 21:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- True or false: Talk page comments that begin "True or false:" are annoying. - dcljr 06:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My opinion: false. The subcategories are very sparsely populated. Consider, for example, Category:Prime numbers.
What I think would be useful is a category Category:Number classes that would link to articles such as Perfect number, Prime number, Fibonacci number, i.e. named sets of numbers. Dbenbenn 21:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree with that. An article can explain the concept of Foo Number a lot better than a category. Especially as many higher numbers do not have their own articles (nor should they). Radiant_* 08:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
The following sort keys are used for the articles about specific integers to present the illusion of numeric sorting. -- Rick Block 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| number | sort key |
|---|---|
| 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 01 |
| 2 | 02 |
| ... | ... |
| 9 | 09 |
| 10 | 1 0 (to force sorting before any 3-digit number starting with 1) |
| 11 | 1 1 |
| 12 | 1 2 |
| ... | ... |
| 29 | 2 9 |
| 30 | 30 |
| 31 | 31 |
| ... | ... |
| 299 | 299 |
| 300 | 39E02 300 (to force sorting after 39, but first by power of 10) |
| 301 | 39E02 301 |
| ... | ... |
| 999 | 99E02 999 |
| 1000 | 199E03 1000 |
| 1001 | 199E03 1001 |
| ... | ... |
- Why are 1 digit numbers a special case, sorted under 0? After all, this scheme doesn't get numbers sorted numerically anyway. Isn't the point to have all numbers starting with digit x grouped together, then sorted numerically within that grouping? Dbenbenn 02:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sorting the first ten under 0 groups them together. Without doing this the single digit numbers would be scattered across the first digit indices (which IMO would make them harder to find). We could do a scheme where ALL the integers are keyed under, say, 0, and all are in order. This would require adding an explicit sort key to each article (the scheme as currently implemented required adding sort keys to only a small percentage of the articles). -- Rick Block 03:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sort key
See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Sort key. – ABCD 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How about sorting by number of digits?
How about sorting the integers by number of digits first, then string sorting after that? This would give a convenient grouping on magnitude as well...
1-digit numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
2-digit numbers: 10, 11, ..., 99
3-digit numbers: ...
...
User:Jmason888 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How do we decide which integers are interesting?
There are an awful lot of integers. How do we decide which ones are worth including in Wikipedia?
- Like everything else in Wikipedia: we argue the pros and cons, and try to come to a consensus. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers for further discussion on this. sjorford (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- This seems like an awesome analogue to the smallest uninteresting integer paradox, as I'm sure has been noted before. The Smallest Integer Without A Wikipedia Problem. How long can an integer hold that position before someone writes an article about it. The current answer appears to be 161, although several earlier integers are listed for (probably unsuccessful) deletion.
- - Ncsaint 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- make that 162. Ncsaint 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] disambiguation tag
So what is the basis for including the (number) disambiguation tag in very large numbers which do not correspond to years, like 144000 (number)? Obviously the conflict with years is not likely for several millenia, by which point we'll have surely revamped our disambiguation methods on the Galactic Wikipedia, so from whence does this come? All it provides is another hurdle for users to go through when linking to notable numbers. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
