Template talk:Numeral systems/Archive 1

Archived --Niels Ø 07:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Proposed re-design

Here's a more modern (both in terms of markup and looks) attempt that also seems to work better with the rest of the new Wikipedia default skin -- 'Chucker 21:18, 2004 Jun 10 (UTC)'

Numeral systems

Arabic numerals
Armenian numerals
Babylonian numerals
Chinese numerals
D'ni numerals
Greek numerals
Hebrew numerals
Indian numerals
Japanese numerals
Maya numerals
Roman numerals
Thai numerals

Numeral systems

I've shrunk it a little - better?

James F. (talk) 21:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Better. Are there any guidelines, however, on what units to preferably use on Wikipedia? I realize px is a bad choice in that it is fixed; em, however, doesn't work well together with all browser out there, no? -- Chucker 04:30, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Because the old design doesn't work together well with Monobook, I'm replacing it. This talk page gets to keep the previous design. -- Chucker 21:46, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

'Edit this page' link

Jiang removed the link with the note "we dont need it". Who is "we"? Why was this not discussed here first? Every section of articles has "edit" links, why shouldn't a box have one? Adding the link back and correcting it. -- Chucker 16:42, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

If we needed links for templates, then it should have been made part of the software. It is not necessary to have the link there since the template is still accessible without it. --Jia ng 20:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Empty space issue

Why does an article like numeral system which uses this template show so much empty space at the top? Oleg Alexandrov 05:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abjad

Added real Arabic numerals (alphabetic Abjad), and so had to differentiate them from "Arabic" numerals. AnonMoos 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing positional numeral systems

I noticed that there are several articles in Category:Positional numeral systems that do not use this template and are not listed in it. I'm weakly in favor of adding them all, but I can also see arguments against it. What do you people think? —Ilmari Karonen 11:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has responded, I went and did it. Feel free to correct my (pseudo-)Latin. The table is getting quite long, though, raising the issue of whether all these positional numeral systems need to be included at all. Perhaps the template should be split? Or does someone have better ideas? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabic Numerals"

"Hindu-Arabic" is more widely accepted (at least academically) and technically more correct. "Arabic numerals" is in fact a misnomer, which is no longer in use (except in colloquial usage.) If there are no objections, we must change both this template and the article to "Hindu-Arabic Numerals" deeptrivia (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will change it to Hindu-Arabic numerals in ten days. deeptrivia (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to also remove Indian numerals and any others that are part of the same system. Zocky 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the deeptrivia's position, then why are you unilaterally trying to implement a change which is basically the opposite? AnonMoos 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is. We use the same format Name (Origin) for all Greek systems which are not the Greek system in this box, and what I did with Arabic systems was the same. As naming conventions say, use the name that's most commonly used to refer to the concept, and dissambiguate as necessary. Abjad numerals are not "Arabic numerals (Abjad)", they're "Abjad numerals", which happen to be Arabic. All of this has nothing to do with what deeptrivia and I agree should be done with this box in the future. Zocky 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that you seem to be heavily involved in the recent foofaraw over the Arabic numerals article, and that your over-scrupulous concern for ultra-"consistency" here seems to suspiciously dovetail with your ideological positions there. Furthermore, the template does not say "Arabic numerals (Abjad)", it says "Arabic (Abjad)". Please address your remarks to what the template actually says, not what it doesn't say. However, if you want to get into such details, then the Abjad is an Arabic system of numerals which is more genuinely Arabic than what are commonly referred to in English by the phrase "Arabic numerals" AnonMoos 03:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. deeptrivia (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical spaces

Good job deeptrivia, except that the sub-list has vertical blank space above and below it, which adds unnecessarily to the height of the template (at least as it displays in my browser). Is there some technical means of getting around this? AnonMoos 14:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's an wierd looking half blank line between the sublist and the list. I tried a few things to remove it. Haven't succeeded yet, but will change it as soon as I figure out how to. deeptrivia (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used some heavy-handed raw HTML code to eliminate a lot of the unwanted vertical blank-space. It looks better in my browser, and I hope it looks better in other people's. AnonMoos 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic implication of category?

This template used to contain the tag ''''Category:Numeration'', but several pages using it are in sub-categories of Numeration (especially the ''''Category:Positional numeral systems''''), and should, I think, not go into this super-category. Do you agree? I have now inserted the tag directly into those articles that really do belong to the Nuemration category, and removed the tag from this template.--Niels Ø 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]