Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Template

Parts:

  1. Names of section headers/structure
  2. Summary table
  3. Navbar or links to other numbers, versions:
  4. Link to year
    • currrently in use since Seven=>Number, 7=Year
    • add at the end of the "other fields" section

In the /Sandbox I partially re-arranged the pages 1-10 as per the template. I'm not quite sure if the headers "Sets of N" fits well with "other fields".

BTW shall we include some sort of a Navbar?

-- User:Docu

That's some very nice work in the sandbox. I think a navbar might be a good idea, it's probably more intuitive than "following N - 1 and preceeding N + 1".
As for fields, and sets, to be honest with you, I don't know much about that. I'll have to do some research (hopefully right here in Wikipedia) before I can say anything meaningful in regards to that. User:PrimeFan
I added couple of see alsos above, based on the supposition that the numbers will be renamed to 142 (number) etc. (see Talk:List_of_numbers/Deletion). Maybe we should forget about the "groups of N" header (or integrate it in better way).-- User:Docu
I'm not sure what you mean by "groups of N header". Could you clarify? User:PrimeFan
Mainly this section of "2" or "9", but also "3", "6". They include a list of words for a group of 2/9/3/6 units or a unit with 2/9/3/6 parts. Two has separate lists for pairs and twin. -- User:Docu

This sphenic number thing must go, see talk:composite number. -- Egil 10:18, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At Template:numbers_E1 I added a text which can be used as {{msg:numbers_E1}} to display (e.g. at 80):

Template:Numbers E1

Shall we use this for numbers 11-99? User:Docu

I added another one at Template:numbers_E0 (it can be edited there), I looks like this:
Template:Numbers E0
I included it in 3 -- User:Docu
Wow! I didn't know you could do that! That's a great idea. Let's add it to the template proposal, along with an explanation of the underlying markup (I'm going to have to study it a little bit before I feel confident enough to use it myself).
I got a bit carried away, maybe using them too early .. with (whatlinkshere) you can find where. The may still need some fine tuning. The year pages all have links to preceeding and successive years/decades/centuries. I might be easier to just do the above. -- User:Docu

On another matter, it looks like the Number N (number) proposal will win in a landslide. If no one else wants to do it, I'd be willing to change the number articles over to the new format. PrimeFan 22:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we should probably write a summary to said discussion and even add it to the "Naming conventions". I can help move and fix all the redirects [Number_x] afterwards. -- User:Docu

Stubs: Unless they are part of a series (e.g. 1001-1009) which are more developed. I feel we should avoid adding articles of this size. Maybe we should add something here as well. -- User:Docu

Placement of year

I've been recently editing the article on 13 (number) and had a back and forth issue with user:docu regarding the placement of the reference to the year AD13. I am aware of the way the project wants to lay out the page, but I don't think it makes any sense at all to have a section "The number 13 is..." "...the year AD 13". This is pretty meaningless, reads badly and is presented in such a way that it is not at all useful.

I would suggest either a header 'For the year AD 13 see 13' or include it in the footer after the list of related numbers, e.g. Template:Numbers E1 12 and 14 — the year AD 13

I have tried both of these and they have been reverted. What are other people's thoughts? I don't want to get into an edit war, but I think the current method is just plain wrong.

--HappyDog 01:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Previously the article was at thirteen (which might be read as year A.D. 13). Currently the article is at 13 (number) where year A.D. 13 is just one of the various fields the number can apply. This is why I prefer to include it in the list at the end of the article (possibly always as the last one). -- User:Docu

My main objection is the fact that it doesn't read very well. If I wasn't aware of this project (as I previously wasn't) I would naturally rewrite it to read better (as I previously did) and I suspect others will do the same. Imagine how it would read if the list also included 'The number 13 is... The number before 14.'! It seems a bit too obvious to list. One solution might be to change 'The number 13 is' to 'The number 13 could refer to' but this doesn't work in most of the other cases. Do you get my point? --HappyDog 08:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another format for the links to previous/following numbers, added by Schneelocke, separate by a <hr> from the article:

List of numbers

35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39
Integer

The table has the advantage that it links to 35,36 as well as 38,39. Personally I'd like to see 30 and 40 included as well. Depending on the screen size, it may be a bit too tall, the "see also" takes up less space in this regards. -- User:Docu

More choices for navigation bars (now also with tables): Template:Numbers_50s and Template:Numbers_60s:

List of numbers — Integer
50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -60
59 -60 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -66 -67 -68 -69 -70 -71
List of numbers — Integer
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90 -100

They can be seen on white (article namespace) background on 55 (number) and 60 (number). If we use a table, we should probably avoid the <hr> mainly used for disambiguation. As on the default skin, the color #cccccc of table tends to rival with the one of the Wikipedia logo, I used a slightly grayed white on the msg versions above. Personally, I prefer the msg solution over sequence table inserted in the articles. -- User:Docu

I too prefer the msg solution. Reduces the possibility of human error and makes it easier to fix when it does happen. PrimeFan 16:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the msg are being edited, I placed the version available when posting a/m comment. In the meantime, I made the numbers a bit smaller, e.g. Template:Numbers_110s:

109 -110 -111 -112 -113 -114 -115 -116 -117 -118 -119 -120 -121
List of numbers — Integer
100 -110 -120 -130 -140 -150 -160 -170 -180 -190 -200

Personally, I think it's usefull if the 10/20/30 are also linked (either an all from 10-99 or just on 10/20/30/40. At some point we will have to chose which version we'd like to include in the template. -- User:Docu

This last version seems very good to me. All the links we need are included, and the layout is nice. slord 22:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the meantime Sj, found a solution to include the navbar in the table, e.g. the following to versiona (I used "subst" freeze the presentation of {{msg:numbers_40s}} {{msg:numbers_60s}} ):

List of numbers — Integers

<< 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 >>
Cardinal forty
Ordinal fortieth
Numeral system
Factorization 2^3 \cdot 5
Roman numeral XL
Binary 101000
Hexadecimal 28

<< 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >>
Cardinal sixty
Ordinal sixtieth
Numeral system sexagesimal
Factorization 2^2 \cdot 3 \cdot 5
Roman numeral LX
Binary 111100
Hexadecimal 3C


Another variation is the following, integrating one of Sj's messages:

66
Cardinal sixty-six
Ordinal 66th (sixty-sixth)
Factorization 2 \cdot 3 \cdot 11
Roman numeral LXVI
Binary 1000010
Hexadecimal 42

<< 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >>

Source is:

<table border=1 style="float: right; border-collapse: collapse;">
<tr><th colspan=2 align=center>66
<tr><td>[[Cardinal number|Cardinal]] <td>sixty-six
<tr><td>[[Ordinal number|Ordinal]]   <td>66th (sixty-sixth)
<tr><td>[[Factorization]]            <td><math>2 \cdot 3 \cdot 11</math>
<tr><td>[[Roman numeral]]            <td>LXVI
<tr><td>[[Binary numeral system|Binary]]<td>1000010
<tr><td>[[Hexadecimal]]              <td>42
<tr><td colspan=2 align=center>{{msg:numbers_60s}}
</table>

Maybe we decide on a way to rotate the versions solutions .. or keep one or the other. -- User:Docu

Deletionists' Lobbying

I wish to make you all aware of a disturbing trend. The militant deletionist User:Eloquence, upset that the vote on the number pages didn't quite go his way, has sent several users, (User:Guillman, User:Cimon avaro, myself among others) form letters insinuating that they didn't think their votes all the way through and urging them to reconsider their votes. I should never have to tell anyone that I thought my vote thoroughly and that I take it seriously; that should be implicit. The vote has taken place and the issue needs to be brought to closure and relegated to archive talk pages. Correct information will never hurt Wikipedia's reputation. Militant deletionists will.

You are doing an excellent job creating a resource that is intuitive, entertaining and highly useful. Thanks to the number pages on 1 to 101 I have made myself simple mnemonics for phone numbers and my bank PIN numbers. Del arte 13:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They don't like the way the vote goes, so they insinuate the people didn't think their votes through. Simply apalling. PrimeFan 16:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Notation standards

I've added multiplication dots (·) in the 200 and 300 pages where there were only spaces, but suddenly I realised that no everyone might consider this an improvement. Is there any chosen standard about that ? Should we write :
15 = 3 5 (that which existed before my change)
15 = 3x5 (obviously not)
15 = 3·5 (that which exists after my change)
15 = 3 · 5 (as seen on another page)
Anything else ?

I'd also like to ask, shall we write :
8 = 2^3 (current way of doing it)
8 = 23 (seems to look better)
I hope it's the right place to talk about that.
slord 13:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Those items you added dots to are very short stubs, intentionally so. Once someone decides there's enough information on a particular stub to make a full article, then every care should be taken to adhere to the template. But otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it. PrimeFan 22:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the tip. The template isn't clear about the notation to be used in the factorisation line. Maybe the multiplication and exponent questions remain interesting for that template, then. slord 19:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Template questions

Why is it that tables have, under cardinals, "sixty-one" for example, when they should be "61"? I can understand this usage for the ordinals, but standardization needs to be made. Dysprosia 09:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this is how the table should read for numbers over 100?
<table border=1 style="float: right; border-collapse: collapse;">
<tr><th colspan=2 align=center>161
<tr><td>[[Cardinal number|Cardinal]] <td>161 (one hundred and sixty-one 
<tr><td><td>or one hundred sixty-one)
<tr><td>[[Ordinal number|Ordinal]]   <td>161st (one hundred and sixty-first
<tr><td>or one hundred sixty-first)
<tr><td colspan=2 align=center>
</table>

GUllman 16:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

Yes, but without saying (one hundred and sixty one or one hundred sixty one) in the Cardinal section. I thought that this distinction should remain in the Ordinal section, but am not so sure now - should it? Dysprosia 01:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's an example: 275305224_(number)

1729 is now unprotected

The page on the number 1729 is now unprotected, but I don't know for how long. I took advantage of this window to add that 1729 is a Zeisel number and also to add the links to the Spanish and Italian articles on the number. I also want to add that handy number bar to the Docuan table, but I don't know which one is appropriate here. PrimeFan 17:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RFC: 132 as an expletive

An anonymous user added a paragraph to the article on 132 to the effect that 132 is sometimes used as an expletive because of its binary representation. Another anonymous user deleted that paragraph saying that 132 the expletive failed the Google test. I'd like someone else, preferrably a logged-in user, to take a look at Talk:132 (number) and make a decision on whether or not to reinstate that paragraph. PrimeFan 21:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am the "anonymous" user. Anyway, I have seen both 132 and 4 to represent the expletive on multiple occassions, but it's probably hard to find it in a Google search because of the nature in which it is ussually used. (You won't find a web page about it, for example.) Sasha Slutsker
If you can show me just two verifiable sources, I will not only re-add this to the article on 132 but defend it against any future deletionists. Right now, however, I'm just as skeptical about this as 141.x.x.x. Anton Mravcek 21:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Search Google for "counting binary fingers 132" and you'll get at least 3 good sources. Sasha Slutsker 06:39, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I've looked at the top three results, and only the first one even hints at the use of 132 as an expletive. Give me some time to look at the other first page results. Anton Mravcek 20:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)