Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Sandbox | /Archive 0 | /Archive 1 | /Archive 2

Contents

[edit] New version of Template:Number

A stylesheet modification allows to add optional fields to infoboxes when needed. CyberSkull updated Template:Number to make use of this. It's already in use for a few pages, but e.g. 9 (number) needs additional (optional) fields to be added (see Template talk:Number). -- User:Docu

[edit] Max proof

Whats the maximum possible alcoholic proof? 200? Numerao 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

One would think 200-proof makes sense for pure alcohol, but simply skimming the alcoholic proof article shows it's a little more complex that. Anton Mravcek 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASCAR numbers

Can someone write a guideline for race car numbers in the number articles? Some of the drivers, like Dale Earnhardt are very well known, but some of these guys I've never heard of and I doubt many non-NASCAR fans know about them. PrimeFan 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the intersection of wiki editors and NASCAR fans is close to the null set. - DavidWBrooks 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm likely the only mathematician in the bunch (see my user page). Royalbroil 05:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dull numbers

I've {{prod}}ded 164 (number) - all the article claims is that it is the lowest number about which nothing interesting can be said. That in itself does not make it interesting - see interesting number paradox. — sjorford (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.
What is interesting is debatable. The fact that 164 "is the smallest number which is the concatenation of squares in two different ways" (Friedman's special numbers page) makes it a mildly interesting number, and since that's a notch above dull, the interesting number paradox is avoided. PrimeFan 16:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formating the lists - bulleted or not?

There appears to be uncertainty whether lists of items under a heading - such as each unrelated point under Mathematics or Music - should be led with bullets or not - that is, whether they should look like this:

[edit] Header

Item 1

Item 2

... or should look like this:

[edit] Header

  • Item 1
  • Item 2

Most articles have both, for no obvious reason that I can see. I prefer the latter, and was tidying up 12 (number), starting with the miscellany at the bottom, and got confused about when to stop. I can't find any agreed-upon guidelines; have I missed something? - DavidWBrooks 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed by the project members.
My two cents on the issue: If no obvious relation can be discerned between two points, they should be bulleted. But ideally, we should strive to connect everything, e.g., 111 is a repunit and because of that it is also palindromic, strobogrammatic, dihedral, etc., PrimeFan 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
These pages are full of lists that have no connection except the article number. (e.g., from 12 (number): There are twelve months in a year. The Western zodiac has twelve signs, as does the Chinese zodiac. The Chinese use a 12 year cycle for time-reckoning called Earthly Branches.) Is that enough of a connection to have no bullets? I hope not, because a lack of bullets makes it look like a badly-formated paragraph rather than a list, IMHO.
There is no consistency at the moment - e.g., in 11 (number), the unrelated items under music are bulleted, while those under sports are not. - DavidWBrooks 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This project seems to have fizzled - either that, or bullets do not grab the collective conscious, judging from the roaring silence on the issue. So I guess I'll make the changes I think are suitable - e.g., bulleting every item unless it is connected to another item. Hopefully if 12 (number) changes, others will follow suit. - DavidWBrooks 12:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that it's the second. Like I've said, we need to paragraphize more. Bullets are easy and they're an acceptable step towards paragraphs. PrimeFan 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASCAR Numbers Part II

As a representative from WP: NASCAR, I agree that not all numbers of cars need to be put in the Numbers section. I do believe though that famous numbers from NASCAR should be put in. I think a good criteria is if the car won a championship.

  • 3 Dale Earnhardt
  • 24 Jeff Gordon
  • 43 Richard Petty
  • 27 Rusty Wallace
  • 7 Alan Kulwicki
  • 18 Bobby Labonte
  • 20 Tony Stewart

etc., etc., if you that like that policy, you can message me back for the full list. Tim Quievryn

That sounds like a good start. I'd also like to know about the hierarchy of races. For example, in college basketball, winning an NCAA championship means more than winning the GLIAC championship. So, in NASCAR, is winning the Nextel Cup or the Coca-Cola 600 as prestigious as winning the Indy 500? Anton Mravcek 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I second. I will contact Tim. PrimeFan 22:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I will personally go through tomorrow and add the numbers (#20, #97, #17, #24, #18, #88, #5, #44, #43, #6, #3, #7, #9, #27, #11, #22 and #72) These are the numbers deemed in the "Modern Era" of NASCAR. Also, the #33 will have a mention of Harry Gant, a man who is held as the "greatest driver never to win a championship." Mark Martin will also go under #6, under the same criterion as Gant. In response to Anton's question, yes there is a heirarchy. In NASCAR, the Daytona 500 is by far the biggest race. The numbers I included in the last are for winners of the NEXTEL Cup Series in the past. NASCAR has an interesting minor league. There are two "minor leagues" that would probably be above your deemed Class AA baseball, but below MLB (the CUP). Obviously, I will not use championship numbers from those series, seeing as they are minor. Obviously, if you want any more info about NASCAR divisional procedure, visit our WikiProject. Thanks for your help. Tim Quievryn aka daNASCAT
You're welcome, and thank you for your help. I've added the guideline to the project page. PrimeFan 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This Revision has been completed. I kept the reference on 90 due to Donlavey's signifance as the longest owner in the sport.
Donlavey only had one win as a car owner, and not many notable drivers. I don't think of Donlavey as a significant team. I have removed the car number from the 90 (number) page. Royalbroil 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if you can buy a Donlavey collectible plate (or any such trinket) from Franklin Mint then I think he's notable even if he has no championship wins (though I don't know if this is the case). Anton Mravcek 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 105263157894736842

I have created a page for the number 105263157894736842. I need help in improving its article. Specifically I wanted to know what type of number this is owing to its properties. Details are there in the article in commented text. Also please suggest any more properties you know/can think of about this number. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears in five sequences of the OEIS. Unfortunately, all those sequences have the keyword "base." Anton Mravcek 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hoof38

(Copied from the wrong place to both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)

List of "bad" articles he's created (IMHO) include:

  • (-> means redirect)
  • with my comments after
292,277,026,596 -> 11th millennium and beyond
edited both 10000 and 10,000 to be separate disambiguation pages
  • (I think they're now at least the same disambiguation page)


Category:Thousand
Category:Million
Category:Billion
123456789 (number)
1023456789 (number)
1234567890 (number)
12345678987654321 (number)
987654321 (number)
9876543210 (number)
−2 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−3 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−4 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−5 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−6 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−7 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−8 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−9 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
−10 (number) -> Negative and non-negative numbers
  • I changed all of the −n (number) to redirect to n (number), but I don't think they should be there at all
Year −1 -> 2 BC
1st decade -> 0s
1st decade AD -> 0s
−0s -> 0s BC
  • (OK, these aren't confusing, anyway)
1st changed from 1 (number) to first
2nd from 2 (number) to second (completely wrong, this time)
10th from 10 (number) to tenth (wrong again)
  • I reverted these.
−1 as a disambig between -1 (number) and 2 BC
−2 as a disambig between −2 (number) and 3 BC
−3 as a disambig between −3 (number) and 4 BC
−4 as a disambig between −4 (number) and 5 BC
−5 as a disambig between −5 (number) and 6 BC
−6 as a disambig between −6 (number) and 7 BC
−7 as a disambig between −7 (number) and 8 BC
−8 as a disambig between −8 (number) and 9 BC
−9 as a disambig between −9 (number) and 10 BC
−10 as a disambig between −10 (number) and 11 BC
  • Why?
2100 changed from a redirect to 21st century to a disambig between 21st century, 22nd century, and 2100 (number)
4000 added reference to 5th millennium and 4000 (number) to disambig
5000 changed from a redirect to 5000 (number) to a disambig with 5th millennium, 6th millennium, and 5000 (number)
6000 etc.
7000 etc.
8000 etc.
9000 etc.
[[12:00] -> hour
[[1:00] -> hour
[[2:00] -> hour
[[3:00] -> hour

etc.

  • I've proposed these for deletion. He's now redirected one of them to clock.

[edit] rfc: numbers in sports wit asterix

Barry Bonds has hit more tan 714 homeruns but its cause he used the steroids. What's the project policy for dealing whit records taht are tainted? Numerao 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ye gods, let's not go there: there's enough debate over which sports numbers (of which there are all-but-an-infinite supply) to use; trying to also judge their validity is WAY beyond the scope of the numbers project. - DavidWBrooks 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
David, so far people have only been adding jersey and race car numbers, for which we have a criterion (the number is retired). But it's quite foreseeable that people will eventually want to add homerun records, RBIs, stolen bases, etc. At least as baseball is concerned, I think only homerun records are worth including. Touchdowns for football, goals for soccer, I don't about basketball, I don't watch it.
Numerao, I think that for this project we should only concern ourselves with what the official statistician of the league (or team) says. If he doesn't award an asterisk, that's good enough for us, regardless of how much the public thinks the asterisk is deserved. PrimeFan 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Compare 4 (disambiguation), Four (disambiguation), 9 (disambiguation), Nine (disambiguation). It's not clear what the main name for a number-disambiguation article should be (although clearly the redirects should be kept). --ais523 11:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They should generally redirect to 4 (number), except for stuff like "Four, Isère" which is not number related. -- User:Docu
I've been bold and moved Nine (dab) to 9 (dab), and will check other numbers accordingly. Someone ought to stop me/revert me if I'm wrong. --ais523 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Just checking, 9 was the only number in the range 1-12 out of line (the others all either had no dab page or the word was a redirect to the number). I know this sort of thing probably doesn't make any difference, but I like consistency. --ais523 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New project member QQ

User:QQ has joined the project. Anton Mravcek 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 200's growers split off

the stuff on numbers like 291 to 299 is getting copied to 290 from 200. soon the article on 200 will be pruned, but before deleting anything I wuold like to be sure everything got copied over ok. Numerao 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{On RM}}

I added a requested move (1000000 (number) → million), and created a template (named above) to the Articles for Deletion section. If I've done it wrong, please fix it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 53: Supposedly the "universal random number"

Some anonymous user keeps putting "universal random number" on fifty-three. He has yet to provide one book, mathematician or physician's paper, or reputable website to support his claim. But I've used up my three reverts, and in any case I'm starting to feel very exhausted about this. Anton Mravcek 20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How far to go

Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) has heretofore been subordinate to the notability guidelines in the "How far to go?" section of this project page. But no longer. One editor is repeatedly introducing a new set of criteria there, that do not match this project's criteria, without any discussion here. I've several times pointed that editor to this project as being the place to discuss and expand this project's criteria. We don't need two conflicting sets of criteria. Please contribute to the discussion. One possible way to proceed is to move the notability criteria for numbers from this project to Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), and have that be the primary statement of the criteria. Uncle G 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • They didn't seem contradictory or conflicting to me, but it is better for that page to refer to here. All that page had before was the tired old rant that Wikipedia doesn't have infinite server storage. Someone wondering on the notability of say, 167, would've been left scratching their heads; there was no link to WP:NUM until recently.

    We project members (myself especially) have to admit that we haven't addressed the notability of articles on kinds of numbers (e.g., "Joe Schuck numbers," "translocatable repdigit primes," etc.) nor lists of numbers (e.g., "list of numbers that are permutable primes in even bases but not odd bases.")

    For example, WP:NUM does address whether, for example, the fact that say, 170 is a Joe Schmuck number merits mention in the article on 170. The question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on Joe Schmuck numbers is one I don't care to debate, though I don't know if other project members feel the same about that. PrimeFan 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    • It's not a "tired old rant". It's a simple truth. And that page has linked to this project, with the link named "Wikipedia's notability and inclusion criteria for numbers", from its very first version onwards. Uncle G 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{On RM}}

I've now added the requested moves (10000000 (number), 100000000 and 1000000000 → ten million', hundred million and billion. — Voortle 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about moving 496 (number) and 1729 (number) back to four hundred ninety-six and one thousand seven hundred twenty-nine respectively? Anton Mravcek 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd support moving 496 (number) to four hundred (and) ninety-six, indicating that the "and" is optional. Voortle 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How far to go (2) One seventh

Hi, the How far to go only lists 1/2, 2/3 and 3/5 for fractions. I would like to propose 1/7 as well due to the interesting repetition of its decimal digits (ie the same six number repeating sequence starting at different points in the sequence for each seventh fraction) and also the One seventh ellipse Gary Shingles 04:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure PrimeFan was thinking of giving that definition some small but appreciable room for expansion when he wrote that fractions that have their own Unicode characters (except composed characters). Please see Unicode's Number Forms Code Chart. It includes some thirds, fifths, sixths and eights, but no sevenths.
Maybe that makes for a slightly tenuous third point of interest, the lack of sevenths on that chart (which I can't open at the moment) Gary Shingles
But perhaps now would be a good time for the project members to have some discussion as to what makes fractions mathematically interesting or uninteresting. Anton Mravcek 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Another one is the improper fraction 22/7 commonly used as a substitute for PI (20 years ago at least :-) ... which I've just realised is a seventh also. Must be my lucky number (no do not note that! :-) But that makes three firm points of interest and a tenuous one Gary Shingles
A strict reading of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) would seem to imply that rational approximations of π are not notable enough to warrant their own articles. However, I think the guidelines of WP:NUM were written more thoughtfully and without reliance on the hackneyed "Wikipedia not infinite" rants. Sorry to be so inconclusive about this. What do the other project members have to say about this? Anton Mravcek 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So Gary, if I understand you correctly, the three interesting things about 1/7 are:
  1. "the interesting repetition of its decimal digits" (something that is true in base 10 but perhaps not other bases)
  2. The "One seventh ellipse"
  3. "the lack of sevenths on that [Unicode] chart"
Have I identified these correctly? PrimeFan 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. to Anton: I meant to make the guideline for fractions very strict as a concession to the deletionists who wanted the integer guidelines to be much stricter than they are now.
Yes to no.1 and no.2; no.3 is slightly facetious, but no.4 would be that 22/7 (being a seventh) can be used as an approximation to π (perhaps because of no.2?) Gary Shingles 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on the numbers 10,000,000,000, 100,000,000,000, 1,000,000,000,000, 10^13, 10^14 and 10^15

What do you all think about having articles at 10000000000 (number), 100000000000 (number), 1000000000000 (number), 10^13 (number), 10^14 (number) and 10^15 (number) about those numbers, similar to the article we have at 1000000000 (number)? Should those articles exist? Voortle 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. In fact, one could make a case for deleting the articles above million. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I would make the case for those above 10^10. It gives a place to mention numbers like 1023456789 and 7778742049 that are mildly interesting but not interesting enough to warrant articles. PrimeFan 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisors

Recently, complete lists of divisors have been added/updated in all articles 1 (number to 100 (number), some by myself (viz. 53, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 ), some by user:Jol123. Here's a reaction from talk:53 (number):

Seems funny to list divisors for a prime number, but I see that they exist in the table for other primes, so you're correct to return them for consistency's sake. - DavidWBrooks 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I agree with this. In some of the articles I touched, I added the line "Divisors" in the table, in some I include 1 and the number itself to an already existing list of divisors, and in some I corrected simple errors in the list. Numbers above 100 need similar attention for consistency; I'll leave that to someone else - perhaps awaiting a concensus on the inclusion of all these divisors has been reached.--Niels Ø 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've noticed that a lot of pages don't have the template on their Talk pages...

I could go around to all of them, adding in the template. Unless there's some reason that they shouldn't have the template. Just let me know.

Also, I'm willing to join this project and become and active contributor to it. —Captain538[talk] 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this one, the NumberTalk?
This article is part of WikiProject Numbers, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use resource about numbers. Suggestions for improving multiple articles on numbers and related subjects should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers.


I'll add it to a couple of pages. You can do the rest if you like, or you can have a bot do it. PrimeFan 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65535

Can someone take a look at 65535 (number)? PrimeFan 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it, added a Docuan table and a very tiny bit about its mathematic properties. I'm not sure this article is called for at all by the project guidelines. Anton Mravcek 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting us know. That's quite a bit for me to chew on for a while. In the meantime, do any of the other members of this project have any questions for B2T2? PrimeFan 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Notability of number bases

An anonymous user added "number bases" to the "How far to go?" section, so I amended it thus:

  • Number bases: Those that are actually used (or have been used in the past) for practical calculations, such as binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal and sexagesimal.

I realize that some people might have a problem with this because it doesn't address the notability of base 13. Anton Mravcek 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The base 13 article says that the Mayan calendar used base 13. I'm not sure that's right, but if it is then it would certainly cover base 13 on the "practical calculations" rule that you propose. PrimeFan 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] talk:trillion and talk:quadrillion

Vote here as to whether you think trillion and quadrillion should stay or be redirected to names of large numbers. I oppose redirecting them there, as most links to them want the actual number, not the name. User:R. Koot keeps redirected trillion there which seems like vandalism to me, as there was no consensus for such a redirect. Voortle 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (number)

Why do all the number articles end in (number)? Obviously, when I say 62, I mean the number 62, not the year 62. Why is it 62 (number), not 62? 62 (number) 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 475 (number)

Does 475 (number) meet the notability criteria for number articles, as you interpret it? CMummert · talk 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging it only from what's written at 400 (number) today, I say it's not notable enough to have its own article, but notable enough to merit mention at 400. PrimeFan 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Chris's removal of "ephemeral properties"

Anyone have any opinions on User:Chrisfc's mass removal of properties he considers ephemeral from various number articles (210, 400, 800, etc.)? Anton Mravcek 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SI standards

Korky Day first posted this to the project page

I think the SI preferred is 1.729 with the period raised halfway up the line of type. I can't find that symbol in Wikipedia's list of symbols, though. I think we should generally be moving toward Metric standands, not creating our own, as is described above. Korky Day 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a standard we've created. It comes from mathematical papers. Anton Mravcek 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Numbers_c655.html"