Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RfC: How much trivia belongs in number articles?

What information belongs in number articles (such as 73 (number)), and what should be excluded as trivia?

16:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevant guideline: MOS:TRIVIA


For example, which of the following (all of which are currently in that article) should be mentioned?

  • Important mathematical properties of 73 (star number)
  • Unimportant mathematical properties of 73 (odd number)
  • Bands, places, companies, etc. with 73 as part of the name (Pizza 73)
  • Highways numbered 73 (Interstate 73) (note that many numbers have dozens of such highways)
  • Atomic number 73 (tantalum)
  • Events etc. which incidentally relate to 73 (seconds after launch that the Challenger exploded)
  • Publications, shows, etc. which discuss 73 (the 73rd episode of The Big Bang Theory)
  • Games which include 73 as part of the rules (the 73 minutes given in international curling competitions)
  • Sport records of 73 (home runs by Barry Bonds in 2001)
  • Athletes numbered 73 (Jonathan Scott )

and so on and so forth. Basically, what is relevant for readers, and what is not? -- YPNYPN ✡ 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd only include star number and tantalum.
I believe being odd is an important mathematical property but it is just not specific enough to 73.
If there was a very good reason which was noted somewhere that a place was called for instance Pizza 73 that might be worth putting in - however the Pizza 73 article does not say anything like that. If it isn't important enough for an article specifically about the subject then it isn't worth putting here. The same applies to Interstate 73, The Big Bang Theory and Jonathan Scott.
The atomic number is a very specific number determining the properties of an element and noted as such. However I would not include elements which included 73 neutrons plus protons, e.g. there is no point including Helium under 4 but there is under 2.
The 73 seconds of the Challenger explosion is just incidental, there is no real connection and nothing has been written indicating there was a reason for that specific number rather than say 47 or 113.
Overall the reasons for excluding mentioning it is odd are the only ones I consider as requiring spelling out properly. The rest come under the not of interest for the actual number and noted as specifically interesting compared to other numbers in cited sources. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My 2c: it should contain important properties of the number relating to mathematics, literary symbolism, numerology, science and technology, etc. Here "important" in mathematics means that the property is significant enough to have a Wikipedia article and that the number in question is one of the smallest half dozen or so numbers with that property; e.g. being an "odd number" is certainly a significant property but 73 comes too late in the list of odd numbers for it to be particularly interesting as an example of an odd number. In literary symbolism and numerology, every claim should be reliably sourced, and I think the existence of such sourcing is enough to show that those meanings are important enough to include. In science and technology, atomic numbers should probably be included, and uses of the number as important parts of network protocols (e.g. 404 to indicate a nonexistent web page) but not e.g. asteroids with that number (because having an asteroid with a number is not a distinguishing property of the number). It should not list articles for which the number is only incidental to their notability (e.g. sports players who have that jersey number). Articles that have the number in the title may be listed in a see also section, although I suspect Pizza 73 is of too localized interest to include. There is usually a separate list of highways with a given number and that should be included as one item in the see-also section rather than listing each highway separately. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty much a non-mathematician though I do have an interest in some areas. 73 (number) is structured more like a disambig page than anything else. I would expect it to focus on the properties of the number, and not names that include it. You could move the current article to 73 (disambig) with relatively little change to its structure. If the number 73 has sufficient mathematical properties and wider cultural relevance to make it notable then by all means enlarge on that at 73 (number). That might include a few cultural uses such as if a comedy programme discussed the properties of the number 73, the deliberate choice of 73 in curling, or (as is the case for Highway 61), someone wrote a famous song about it. But where 73 is just part of a name, that should be for the disambig page. Just my opinion, HTH. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
We might distinguish several classes of entry, possible overlapping, (and I think the above users more or less did)
  1. Incidental - someone lives at number 73, this number is not generally relevant (Exceptions for usage - Number 10 Downing Street is also known as "Number 10" - it should be in the article)
  2. Identifiers - 7400 chips, atomic numbers, - here the number is used virtually or completely as an alias - the numerical value may or may not carry meaning
  3. Partial - Route 73, BC109 - depends on the notability/significance
  4. Characteristic - things about the number - depends on the notability/significance
For most of these things I would suggest a tapered approach, the lower numbers we should be using a finer mesh to sieve out entries. Example; there are probably many A14 roads, but not so many A404s. 65000 should mention the song, 76 maybe not. Rationale: If someone enters 65000 the chance they want the song is much higher than if they enter 76. For 3 the chance they want "three blind mice" is extremely small.
And by tradition these pages are very similar to dab pages. Splitting them to a page about the number per se and the dab entries would not be a great advance, though for the smaller number is may be worth considering.
Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
My personal opinion, having read the above:
  • All mathematical properties that are not obvious. (73 is obviously odd, but not so obviously prime.)
  • Scientific phenomena, if either:
    • The number is an integral part of its definition, and the subject has its own article; (e.g. elements) or
    • There is at least a paragraph somewhere else on Wikipedia discussing the number as it relates to the subject.
  • Significant cultural references - but as Rich Farmbrough said, limit them for smaller numbers. Significant might mean if the subject receives at least a paragraph of discussion somewhere else on Wikipedia.
  • Subjects including the number in the title can be included in the See Also section, as long as there aren't too many. Years should be the first entry in that section.
A disambiguation page could then list every page with the number in the title. I don't think the number page should be used for this, since in many cases the other things have no numerical connection - for example telephone area codes are not numbers, they're sequences of digits. Therefore, they don't belong in articles describing the number. -- YPNYPN ✡ 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "all mathematical properties" is a reasonable position, even if constrained by non-obviousness and sourcability. E.g. in the case of 73, OEIS lists 14717 different sequences that it belongs to, a large fraction of which can be interpreted as different properties that it has. That's too many to put in an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not all of the 14717 sequences are actually meaningful. We don't need to mention that it's a natural number, a nonnegative number, an odd number, a number which is the reverse of another number, prime, the greatest prime factor of 73, the lowest prime factor of 73 (just from the first ten sequences shown). Once you prune out all of the useless stuff, there probably won't be too many to include. Of course, for numbers like 1, some will have to be omitted. -- YPNYPN ✡ 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe that there is any consistent category of information that we should on principle forbid about any particular number or set of numbers, it is too hard to be sure when some truly interesting example will pop up, or some truly interesting meta-item; what is not of any interest in isolation sometimes can be of considerable interest in combination with a few other trivia.
Consider: How interesting 10 is; 10=2*5 (Great biiig hairy deal!!!) Ah, but also 10=2+3+5 (yaaawn! So what?) Well, that is the sum of all the primes between the two prime factors of ten! Yeah? That justifies putting it into a WP article? Wellll, OK, but 10 is one of only four such positive integers, and this has not yet been proved...
What I recommend instead is that anyone who finds some item of trivia that seems to have no merit in the list should delete it and in the talk page explain why. If there is a strong objection, replace it, possibly stating the case more explicitly. Not everyone has to find every entry fascinating. The very subject of interesting numbers leaves most people numb, but fascinates others. We value a degree of consistency of course, but it would impoverish us if we were slaves to its most extreme forms. JonRichfield (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical years again

I'm proposing the deletion of these sections. I have described them as "one of the least interesting and least relevant sections on WP". I'm not sure that Arthur Rubin agrees.

I went ahead and did away this section on the 17 article but was reverted by Arthur who says "yes, it is relevant. It's a quasi-disambiguation page" and above he suggests that these sections link to the years listed since they are, he argues, "modified 'See also' sections". On the other hand, Arthur has replied that they would belong at 18 (disambiguation) and "Unless you want to write that, they belong at some article named '18'." So I think we can come to some agreement.

How did these integer articles end up being "quasi-disambiguation" pages in the first place? Why would someone be at 18 (number) if what they really wanted was a year? The only reason I can guess is that they got sent there from the 18 AD article. The hat notes at the year articles send reader to the number articles "for other uses".

So you're looking for 2018 or maybe 18 BC and somehow you end up at 18 then you're sent to 18 (number) and you have to then go to the Historical years section to find a link to the article you're really after. It's more that a little convoluted and it doesn't even work for all years since not every number article has this section and not all of the sections that do exist link to the year articles. It seems to me an example of very poor organisation. The solution I'd propose is to fix the hat note at the year articles.

The hat note in question is produced by the template {{year dab}}. Interestingly at this template's talk page a related issue was brought up a while ago where JHunterJ says "Number pages are (correctly) categorized as Category:Integers. They are not disambiguation pages. If other Wikipedia articles are still ambiguous with the title (not just related to the number), a disambiguation page is needed for 'other uses'." Obviously, I agree with him. 18 (number) should be about the number, disambiguation belongs elsewhere.

The number articles should deal with the numbers. Years are not relevant to the topic in question. Yes, these years belong at some article named 18 ... but, I say, not an article named 18 (number). Well, as for 18 (disambiguation), it exists (redirects to eighteen) but if a specific disambiguation page doesn't exist for a given number let the hat note at the year article do the disambiguation (since that's the page with no bracketed qualifications). It probably won't be difficult since the template already exists.

Arthur, what do you think?JIMp talk·cont 09:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd have though it should be under the year if anywhere. There are a lot of places where they say 'in this year' and refer to things two or three centuries ago so even by that reckoning the historical year section doesn't fulfil any real purpose as it only refers to 18 BC, 18 AD, 1918, and 2018 and I can't see a good reason to list all the others either. If they looked up 18 nd meant a year they should end up on the year article and be directed there by a see also if it is very common. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see your point. However, with the (relatively recent) exceptions of 8 and 9, the disambiguations are attached to the number page. I still think they should be included, but if consensus here is against inclusion, they should be dropped consistently in all number articles from (at least) 10 through 99. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1 to 7 are exceptions also. Yes, the disambiguations are currently attached to the number page but note that for 41 out of the hundred numbers from 0 to 99 already have a specific x (disambiguation) page so for 41% of these the disambiguations attached to the number pages are sort of redundant. Of course, disrupting the status quo can at time cause problems but I don't think that this is one of those times. The disambiguations are attached to the number page, yes, but I don't think they should be. Where no specific disambiguation page exists we could either create one or just let the hat note of the year article do the disambiguation. JIMp talk·cont 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of disambiguation, the current situation is a bit of a mess. Two thirds of the spelt-out integers from zero to twenty redirect to the number article and (except for 14) there exists a separate disambiguation page. For the other third the spelt-out integer is the disambiguation page with the x (disambiguation) redirecting there except 17 (disambiguation) and 20 (disambiguation) which don't exist and 6 (disambiguation) which is another disambiguation page for six.

0. Zero redirects to 0 (number) and a separate 0 (disambiguation) article exists.
  1. One redirects to 1 (number) and a separate 1 (disambiguation) article exists.
  2. Two redirects to 2 (number) and a separate 2 (disambiguation) article exists.
  3. Three redirects to 3 (number) and a separate 3 (disambiguation) article exists.
  4. Four redirects to 4 (number) and a separate 4 (disambiguation) article exists.
  5. Five redirects to 5 (number) and a separate 5 (disambiguation) article exists.
  6. Six is a disambiguation page but a separate 6 (disambiguation) article exists.
  7. Seven redirects to 7 (number) and a separate 7 (disambiguation) article exists.
  8. Eight redirects to 8 (number) and a separate 8 (disambiguation) article exists.
  9. Nine redirects to 9 (number) and a separate 9 (disambiguation) article exists.
  10. Ten is the disambiguation page, 10 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  11. Eleven is the disambiguation page, 11 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  12. Twelve is the disambiguation page, 12 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  13. Thirteen redirects to 13 (number) and a separate 13 (disambiguation) article exists.
  14. Fourteen redirects to 14 (number) but no separate 14 (disambiguation) article exists.
  15. Fifteen redirects to 15 (number) and a separate 15 (disambiguation) article exists.
  16. Sixteen redirects to 16 (number) and a separate 16 (disambiguation) article exists.
  17. Seventeen is the disambiguation page and no separate 17 (disambiguation) article exists.
  18. Eighteen is the disambiguation page, 18 (disambiguation) redirects here.
  19. Nineteen redirects to 19 (number) and a separate 19 (disambiguation) article exists.
  20. Twenty is the disambiguation page and no separate 20 (disambiguation) article exists.

It seems to me that there can only be two logical solutions to this. Either all the spelt-out numbers should redirect to the number article and there should be a separate x (disambiguation) page (as with Zero, One, Two, etc.) or they all should be the disambiguation page with x (disambiguation) redirecting to them (as with Ten, Eleven, Twelve, etc.) The first approach seems the best (also the easiest). If you type in the word, you're most likely after the number, also the "disambiguation" in the title makes it clear what the page is. JIMp talk·cont 07:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone and fixed them all up. I also went and checked the spelt-out numbers up to two hundred and all those which existed redirected to the number page except Sixty-six. JIMp talk·cont 08:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on Roman Numerals

Hi there, I just thought that your WikiProject should look after the article on Roman numerals, thank you. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Move request

See Talk:1000000000 (number)#Requested move. (I don't know if these are automatically included.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages revisited

There is a move request under way suggesting that 10 (disambiguation) be moved over the redirect Ten (disambiguation). An alternative suggestion is that Ten become the disambiguation page. Meanwhile Eleven which had been redirecting to 11 (number) (since the January cleanup mentioned above) was recently rerouted to 11 (disambiguation). Perhaps these are better ways of doing things but if this is true for ten and/or eleven, what about twelve, what about three, what about forty-seven? I can think of no good reason to treat ten, eleven, nineteen, sixty-six, seven, etc. differently. Unless there is a good reason forthcoming, I don't believe they should be. JIMp talk·cont 10:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change

Please see Template talk:Infobox number#Factorization. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template reorganization

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 3#Template:Numbers (0s) for a discussion which should have been made after a discussion here, on the reorganization of the "Numbers" templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

prime infoboxes

An IP editor is changing all the infoboxes for primes from "prime = yes" to "prime = nth". I believe the question of whether this should be done should be discussed in a central location. As the IP has edited all primes up to 229, this seems a good location for discussing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Update growers?

See WP:NUM#Growers; shouldn't we update this to the current number set? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion (single digits)

See Talk:1 (number)#Requested move for a discussion of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename several number articles

See Talk:1 (number)#Requested move. -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Also see #Move discussion (single digits) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

number vs. year

Huh? When I go to 1 article, it has the following note: This article is about the year 1. For the number see 1 (number). For other uses, see 1 (disambiguation).
It should be other way round. The first meaning of "1" is number: [[1]] does not even have anything year-related in it. Maybe there is more need for year articles than number articles, but still it is not right. 85.217.43.203 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be counterintuitive, but to avoid arguments as to whether which is primary for, say, 500, 1500, or 2000, it seems best to have a simple guideline: Years are primary, numbers are not. I could go with the reverse, if someone wants to change all Wikipedia pages to change n to n (year) and n (number) to n. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there probably is quite little to tell about for example number 1473. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
But there may still be a link to 1473 (number) (which would then redirect to 1000 (number).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Numbers in sports, and other major revisions of number articles

@Ego White Tray: Would you please discuss your major revision of number article format and content on this page; specifically, no category of information (such as retired sports jersey numbers) should be completely removed from Wikipedia, without some consensus. I don't mind moving information between "n (number)" and "n (disambiguation)", even without consensus; I do mind elimination of information without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, nearly everything in it was trivial. The question to ask is, are people reading about the number 3 looking for this information - for most of the sports entries, the answer is a resounding no. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A reasonable approach. Do you want to propose specific changes in WP:WikiProject Numbers to reflect that, and see if we can reach consensus. I follow a number of guidelines which I consider absurd, because I recognize there is consensus for them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. The "flagship article" 12 (number) has some really stupid entries, such as "12 is the number of the French department Aveyron". If that is a valid entry, you could fill 20 pages listing departments, divisions and districts numbered 12, both real and fictional. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Number articles is not a counting game

When I visit number articles, I see pages full of trivial crap. Even the "flagship article" 12 (number) has some really stupid entries, such as "12 is the number of the French department Aveyron". If that is a valid entry, you could fill 20 pages listing departments, divisions and districts numbered 12, both real and fictional. The inclusion criteria listed on the Wikiproject even says that every single number mentioned in the Bible deserve mention on a number article - are you kidding me? I suggest that we delete the entire section and replace it with this simple idea: "Imagine that you want to learn about this number. Is this something that you would want to know?" Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted the French Departments out, also. I think we need to establish consensus for removal, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I opened an RfC on this issue (what information should be included) a few months ago, but only a few people responded and there didn't seem to be much of a consensus. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Hundred (word)"

Hundred (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into 100 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see talk:100 (number) for the discussion -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry about the delay. This is the first time I've had a chance to edit Wikipedia other than from an IPhone, for some time.)

An editor has been adding links to:

to many (small) positive integers. Is there anything useful there? I haven't had time to check, except that the last had absolutely no useful information on "1". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor has been notified; it seems he/she only had time to touch 1–7 this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I started editing and adding External links on the numbers, 1 to 7. Are the links useful? Well, they might be useful to me, I do not know, if the link can be useful to you, and the other, Cats in the box. But I can check on the copyright status of these links, if you would like? 66.213.15.238 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2719

The article 2719 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not asserted; it says it's the largest known odd number ....

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also proposing it be moved to 2719 (number), if not deleted. See Talk:2719#Requested move for the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant RfC:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years PamD 14:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zero and Category:One

The naming of Category:Zero and Category:One is under discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_19#Numbers] -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (numbers) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Orders of magnitude (numbers) to be moved to List of orders of magnitude. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2147483647 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2147483647 to be moved to 2147483647 (number). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

bad redirect

I just discovered that 519 (number) used to redirect to Area codes 519, 226 and 548. I've set it right to point to 500 (number).

If there's anyone on this project who's familiar with writing bots or combing through the data dumps or the like, it might be worth checking that there aren't any other instances of this sort of thing. 4pq1injbok (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a few too and redirected 1373 (number), 1920 (number), and 1999 (number) to 1000 (number). Gap9551 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/List of natural number articles

I couldn't find a list of all existing articles about integers including redirects. Some existing lists are not sufficient:

For this reason I decided to be bold and make a list myself (up to 10,000). See the title of this section for the link. This list makes it easy to see which numbers have redirects; the alternative was looking up each number individually. Later on I will show the numbers that have their own article (i.e., no redirect) in boldface. Then it will be easy to see which numbers are missing from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0-9), if any. Please discuss if you object against this list. If the list is considered unnecessary, then I'll move it to my userspace. Also feel free to suggest improvements. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is very useful. Do you think we should add all non-natural-number articles to the list as well? -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we could cast the net a bit wider. We could add fractions, which are almost all redirects (except One half, Hundredth and a few others), and it would be good to get an idea which redirects exist. We could add negative integers too. Maybe we should also look into articles with numeric titles that are not about years, such as 3000. Those could be disambiguation pages or maybe redirects to numbers. Gap9551 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, what is the guideline for creating redirects to number articles? E.g., 1025 (number) exists even though there is no entry for 1025 in 1000 (number), to which it redirects. On the other hand, 1027 (number) does not exist as a redirect even though 1027 does have an entry in 1000 (number). This seems a bit arbitrary. Gap9551 (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are no official criteria. If you want to, you can make redirects for the others as well. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing OEIS

The main page of this project states (since 2006):

It is not the place of this project to prescribe a citation format. Until Wikipedia decides on an uniform citation format, number articles may use whatever citation format would be acceptable in a mathematics journal.

I'm specifically interested in the current consensus in English Wikipedia as to how to cite OEIS. I have seen several articles citing OEIS directly in the text (e.g. Centered polygonal number, Decagonal number, Heptagonal number), and also several articles citing OEIS in footnotes (e.g. Centered octagonal number, Centered octahedral number, Centered nonagonal number).

Are there any prior discussions on the citation format for OEIS, and/or any relevant guidelines? Stannic (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(Please feel free to link to this discussion from anywhere else to notify other contributors) Stannic (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just found Template_talk:OEIS#This_is_an_external_link, Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_32#EL_formatting_and_placement_for_OEIS, Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_32#Inline_links_to_OEIS. This seems to answer my question (unless there are more recent discussions) but I need more time to understand what is the answer. Stannic (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system to be moved to History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Indefinite and fictitious numbers

I'd like to add "umpty 'leven" to Indefinite and fictitious numbers. I've put some discussion on the talk page. Comments, please? --Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass RfD

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Fractions

Why do not fractions like 1/3 and 1/4 have their own articles? Gulumeemee (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system to be moved to History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

0 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 0 (number) to be moved to 0. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Numbers

All of the Wikipedia pages about numbers end in (number). For example, the page about the number 7 is 7 (number). It should be called 7. The page 7 is about the year 7 AD. That is not logical because 7 usually refers to the number 7 instead of the year 7. When people talk about the year 7, they say, "7 AD." Therefore, 7 should be moved to 7 AD and 7 (number) should be moved to 7. A similar thing should be done with all numbers. That would make more sense. Why do all of the number pages end in (number)? Timo3 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All years below 2070 have articles. Most numbers above 300 have no article. Few people would probably expect 2015 to be about the number. The current system is simple and consistent: "X" is about a year and "X (number)" is about a number. Mixed systems would be possible, for example:
  • If X < 100 then "X" is about the number.
  • If 100 ≤ X ≤ 1000 then "X" is a disambiguation page.
  • If 1000 < X then "X" is about the year.
Maybe a mix like this would match WP:PRIMARYTOPIC better but I like the consistency where editors and templates don't have to know detailed rules to make correct links. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We could just move the numbers under 1000. Then, 1 to 999 will be numbers, and 1 AD to 999 AD will be years. However, 1000 will be a year, and 1000 (number) will be a number. 0 should definitely be a number because there was no year 0. Some numbers greater than 1000 could also be moved. For example, 1000000 usually refers to the number, so 1000000 (number) should be moved to 1000000. Timo3 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As much as I would love to support this, there is a great deal of inertia behind it, as you can see at Talk:1 for example. The main problem is that such a move, although it would make sense, would break rather too many links. But to me, four-digit positive integers from 1000 to some reasonable date in the future should be about the year. (Currently after 2069 they're redirects: perhaps this is a little close, but 3000 at the most should be uncontroversial.) After all, 10000 and 106 are more numbers than years. Anything below 1000 needs a CE or AD for me to think of it as a year. (But at the very least, I think we can already make 0 the number.) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Timo, I would support the move from "x (number)" to just "x", for every number, simply because it's logical. 2016 as a year is just one application of the number 2016. Why favor years over any other applications of numbers? It might look like it makes sense when talking about a number like 2016 because it's the current year, but looking at the big picture, it's one number in the sea of infinity. Why do we favor years, and not telephone numbers, or mile market on a particular highway or anything else that can be numbered?
This can be accomplished in multiple steps:
  • first redirect all the numbers "n" to "n (year)" or "n AD", or "n CE".
  • then fix all the links that used to point to "n" to the new name.
  • then rename all the number article from "n (number)" to just "n".
  • then fix all the links that used to point to "n (number)" to just "n".
I disagree about having a mixed solution, where some numbers would be numbers, and some would be years. We need consistency.
On the other hand, when randomly browsing wikipedia, kids are more likely to type "n" rather than "n (number)", which will increase the exposure of these articles to opportunistic vandalism by immature minds who just don't get that one might want an article about a number. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
We should have all year articles end in AD and all number articles be numbers. Then, it will be consistent. By the way, the reason why most numbers above 300 have no article is because there are infinitely many numbers above 300. Timo3 22:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think there is merit in both the view that by default a string of digits is a number, and that there is a lack of notability in the 1000-2999 range, where dates are the more likely target. Since either alone is ambiguous, I think both classes of article should be suffixed: i.e. 1066_(year) vs 1066_(number). This keeps the article names consistent and unambiguous. Disabmiguation can then be used to pick an appropriate target, and can be flexible depending on what we consider to be the more likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I have commented to this effect in the RFC on Talk:1 Almonaster (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbers 1 to 100

It has been proposed that numbers should be considered the primary topic for articles titled "1" to "100" instead of years. This would require numerous page moves and an amendment to the guidelines. Please discuss at Talk:1#RFC1-100. — JFG talk 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This might also require changes in some of "our" templates. As 1 (number) would remain as a redirect, it wouldn't require many changes, but those pages used to provide watchlists would need to be changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

List of notable numbers

Since I've been inactive in this project, an editor (Gronk Oz) added "See also" links from all numbers named in List of notable numbers to all numbers mentioned in that article. As most of the article serves the purpose of "numbers with Wikipedia articles", rather than "notable numbers", I think the link should very rarely occur. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I only added it to one article: 173 (number), which I was updating anyway because I was filling in details of bare URL references. But obiously it would be best for this project to choose whether this is appropriate for the "See also" section or not, then bring all the articles into line with that choice. Personally, I think it fits within the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO, but I often lean towards inclusionism.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

0 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 0 (number) to be moved to 0. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

360

I have just encountered this article for a first time, and noticed that its list of conversions to other bases did not include conversion to base 60. Thinking to add it manually to the Infobox, I then encountered the template and its limitations.

First, why on earth provide conversions to base 36 (if space is begin limited), and not to base 60? Even 365 provides a base 36 conversion, for no apparent reason. Shouldn't the template itself be altered?

Second, 360 is a particularly significant number, for all the reasons listed in the article, but for more than that. It was the ancient Babylonians, who used a sexagesimal number system, who (I think) first divided the circle into 360 degrees (or whatever name they may have given the equal segments). Dealing with division could be a ticklish business in the ancient number systems, so both 60 and 360 provided a lot of numerical ease in doing calculations.

And the ancient Babylonians were one of the most advanced early civilizations in the world, and very influential throughout the Mediterranean, where the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans also flourished and provided untold foundations for all of current western civ. Furthermore, scholars from all these civilizations (plus the Arabs) knew of and used each others' advances, particularly in math, geometry, and astronomy. And that is what I've been exploring recently, along with the foundations of calendars.

Guess what? Many of the earliest calendars were lunar. There are approximately 12 lunations per year. The word "month" derives from "moon". This was the earliest division of the year, and there is evidence from prehistoric "observatories" (e.g. Stonehenge), some dating as early as 6000 BC, that solstices and lunations were the primary interests, and that their relationships were understood, even the 19-year Metonic cycle (as we now call it), in which 235 lunations take almost exactly 19 years (38 solstices). In one case at least, these things were indicated on associated artifacts. Our knowledge is derivative, of course, and not thoroughly proven, but it's evidence that's being taken seriously. So whatever history can tell us, that's by definition what exists in the written record (if one can find any), but knowledge can greatly precede the ability to write it down. It can be captured to some extent in artifacts and pictures, from which writing clearly developed.

Bear with me. From ca 2000 BC the Egyptians were dividing the daytime into 12 hours with sundials, the nighttime into another 12, for a total of 24 per day. Convenient. Consistent. Divide calendar units by 12 instead of something else. Watch the diurnal rotations of the stars proceed through half the ecliptic in a nighttime, at a rate of one hour per 12th of the half, or 24th of a whole day. Watch the sun move through the ecliptic once a year, one 12th per lunation. These numeric relationships were not accidental, however they came to be used so widely.

And back to the Babylonians, trying (by 1500 BC) to be more precise, accurate, in astronomy, and trying to regulate their miserably inaccurate water clocks so they could tell time at night, and using the stars' diurnal motions to do so. For movement in the sky equals interval of time, if you can figure the proportions. 12 signs of the Zodiac, but 24 hours per day, and to get more accurate you want to divide the motions of the sky more finely, because that is where you can get independent precision upon which to base clocks that are notoriously fallible. It will tell you more for regulating calendars too. And the calendars provide the basis for coordinating activities in time, for taxation, for commerce, for festivals, for building projects, and so on. Societies run by them. It was important for everyone.

But 60 is not a multiple of 24, and a greater precision for sky viewing was desirable. Aha: 360! Close to 360 days in the year (many calendars ran on that fundamental). 360 degrees in the circle, each degree the approximate measure of the Sun's motion through the ecliptic per day. The Babylonians are very likely to be the ones who invented it (does anyone here know for sure?). But it stuck, everywhere. One degree is perceptibly measurable to the naked eye if you only have a stationary reference point, and diurnal motion runs through one degree in 4 minutes of our time. Nice timekeeping for the era! And you can do even better than that visually, much better, and we know the Babylonians did. 365.25 days per year? They knew it was less, but they knew that 365.25 was the simplest numerical description (and they weren't alone). And what they knew, so did the Greeks and Romans later, and there you have a primary basis for the implementation of the Julian calendar, the most successful in history. Our current Gregorian calendar is merely a refinement.

Back to 360, the article. I was looking for some mention of its place in history, in numerical systems, in relevancies to calculation, math, astronomy, even by way of redirection to other articles. And its close connection to the base 60 of the Babylonians is a natural, even arithmetically. But 36? It goes nowhere.

I think the article can be improved by establishing a few mentions only of such connections, with appropriate pointers, plus alteration of the Infobox. Similar types of entries could be made to 12, 24, and 60 (the base itself, 60 minutes per hour and 60 seconds per minute - which is where that came from). It seems only appropriate. And it begins to demonstrate why even the elementary aspects of math in arithmetic have a bearing on how we live and operate, and why they're organized as they are. To know numbers, one needs not only math, but application, and too often we get caught up in only one degree of viewpoint, when there's the whole circle to consider. Evensteven (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, folks. I do realize that some of this is already in some of the articles. But when it all goes together in one place, it helps even those who know these things to put them together in a new light. I think it would be helpful, as fundamental as these topics are to everyday life (so much so that we hardly think of them at all), to be sure that they stand out somewhat from the relatively more trivial observations that are recorded in those articles. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I'm currently editing year articles such as 102 to add a hatnote link to 102 (number) etc. Further details at Talk:AD 1. Certes (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

10 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 10 (number) to be moved to 10. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

254 (number)

254 has been deleted per WP:Articles for deletion/254 (number). We need to either appeal the decision or rebuild 250 (number) to include 251‐259. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The debate has been archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/254 (number). I hope this doesn't count as canvassing but there is a similar in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/253 (number). It may be worth keeping an eye on the 0–9 subsection of Category:AfD debates. We at least need to find out when a page has been deleted, so we can tidy up the resulting mess with a redirect. Certes (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed link, thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Infobox number documentation

See Template talk:Infobox number#Documentation. It's not entirely about documentation of the template; it also includes documentation of what should be in the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

100000 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 100000 (number) to be moved to 100,000. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Page titles for larger integers

In view of the RM above, is there a convention for page titles for larger integers? Currently we have

- Certes (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I would approve a multi-move request to standardize on including comma separators and excluding the (number) qualifier which doesn't serve to disambiguate with anything else. — JFG talk 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No objection, but
  1. We need to fix {{num}} (although, to what, I'm not sure), and
  2. We need to add a sort key to all number articles which might get a comma.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, though those problems already exist for some articles such as 1,000,000. The template should continue to work if we don't mind the link being a redirect, e.g. {{num|1000000}} = 1000000. I've added DEFAULTSORT where missing for 100,000+. (I'm ignoring numbers not normally written as a string of digits, such as Googol.) Certes (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits to number articles

I have posted a thread at WT:WPM#Edits to number articles concerning a recent unannounced mass of edits to number articles that is relevant to this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD for 9814072356

9814072356 (number) is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9814072356 (number). Certes (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Article now deleted. Certes (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
...and reinstated as a redirect. Certes (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving numbers pages

In reference to the bottom-most statement in the section Talk:2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 February 2017, JFG seems to propose the following:

  • 1...10 should be about the numbers
  • 11...100 should be disambiguation pages
  • 101+ should be about the years

Correct? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

More precisely, 11…100 should be about the various uses of each number, to avoid duplication between number pages and disambig pages (see for example 52 (number) and 52 (disambiguation) which are begging to be merged, because 52 (number) lists mostly uses of "52", not properties of the 52th natural number). Some numbers with particular mathematical properties could still have their own article, e.g. 54 (number). This looks to me like a sensible way to proceed, given the information available in existing articles. — JFG talk 07:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Are you planning to move articles, or start a move request? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
What is 52 (number) for? It starts with the properties of the integer (and the purist in me says that's where it should end: one article = one topic). It then continues in the format of a disambiguation page, with links to articles such as 52 (comics) for which "52" is a plausible search term. These entries are mixed with properties such as * The number of letters in the English alphabet, if majuscules are distinguished from minuscules. That's not what any reader typing "52" was looking for, but then this isn't a dab page. Do these entries add value, or are they just WP:CRUFT? Having eliminated any cruft, should the dab-like entries move to 52 (disambiguation), or remain as a section within 52 (number)?
To rephrase that, I think we have three types of information:
  1. mathematical properties of the integer
  2. disambiguation entries
  3. other properties (or, if I'm feeling unkind, trivia)
split over two pages:
  • n (number)
  • n (disambiguation)
Keeping open possibilities such as creating a third page, duplicating content in multiple pages and discarding some text, what should go where? Certes (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

30 to 99 are still redirects to AD 30 etc. Are we ready to move 30 (disambiguation) to 30, and so on up to 99, or have we decided not to do so, or do we need further discussion? Certes (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:AD 1#11 to 100, including a new subsection on Proposed classification rules. Certes (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retired jersey numbers in sports

I haven't been watching the 1- and 2-digit number articles for a while; it seems that the retired jersey numbers have been removed. If this has consensus, we should update the project page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this relates to the previous section.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
JFG and I moved the jersey numbers to List of retired numbers in sports after a discussion at Talk:1#Retired Player Numbers. We should certainly consider updating the project page. I think the previous section on this page refers to removing other material, such as minor mathematical properties, and is unrelated. Certes (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In some cases, these are not-so-minor properties like Heegner numbers and exceptional dimensions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

144000 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 144000 (number) to be moved to 144000. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
See also Talk:142857 (number)#Requested move 13 June 2017. Certes (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Now moved to 144,000 and 142,857. Certes (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

9223372036854775807 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 9223372036854775807 to be moved to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

4294967295 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 4294967295 to be moved to 4,294,967,295. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
I think 4294967295 and 9223372036854775807 are now the only numeric article names with six or more digits. I've nominated them for moving by adding commas, which should complete the standardisation process that's already in progress. The only titles defying MOS:DIGITS will now be five-digit ones such as 10000 (number), and I don't see any pressing need to move those. Certes (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't object moving the 5-digit numbers (about 16 articles) too, but it's not really necessary. Gap9551 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Both pages have been speedily moved. Certes (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete merge request at 269

There is an (incomplete) merge request from 269 to 260. Please either complete the request or delete it. I'm on my smartphone, so cannot easily complete the request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Now removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

209 (number)

Please weigh in at the discussion as to content at Talk:209 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You do appreciate this "project" and its "guidelines" are completely dormant? On some days in the last month, this page registered precisely zero views. You'll need local consensus for your views, and right now you don't have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There are 94 watchers. I saw it on my watchlist and have edited the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that's great. But your edits weren't related to the content war that's being engaged by apparently an admin, a desysopped user and a new editor who appears to me to be acting in good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't think anyone's covered themselves in glory here, including myself for not stepping in earlier. I fear that we've driven away an enthusiastic new editor for breaking rules which haven't even been agreed, let alone written down somewhere accessible. The 61+...+16 property looks interesting enough to belong on the page. Harshad probably doesn't: it's base dependent, about 30% of smaller integers are Harshad and 209 is off the end of the OEIS sequence. On the other hand, it's mentioned on many similar pages, so a new editor could quite reasonably assume that it belongs. Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers specifies the requirements for a number having an article at all. The linked essay vaguely allows an article on a number to mention properties that were not deemed interesting enough to justify the article but I can't find any further advice on the height of this lower bar, so I doubt that many new editors could either. Certes (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports numbers

I've started a conversation at User talk:NaBUru38#Sports numbers about adding jersey numbers to number articles. Would anyone else like to give an opinion to help us find the best way forward? Certes (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

24-hour clock

See Talk:13 (number)#24 hour clock for a discussion which may be of interest to this project.

I cannot find a prior discussion, but I'm sure it exists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

List of British bingo nicknames

Is an entry in that list worthy of note in number articles? I'll try to tag 1-90 to point here in about 9 hours, but I noticed a couple of recent additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Finally added the pointers. Sorry about screwing up AWB, but I ran mass revert on myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say No, but I'm struggling to find a guideline to justify that opinion. I think the best place for Kelly's eye is on a page about bingo, not a page about 1. Also, some of the calls look made up, the only other reference being in [2] which may be copied from Wikipedia (or worse, vice versa). Certes (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. What's next, nicknames of house numbers on Downing Street? — JFG talk 09:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I was researching Neighbor of the Beast (which is now clearly pointing to a wrong place), and found hits for 667 and 668. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg

Should current and former numbers of Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg appear in number articles and number disambiguation pages? If so, should we list numbered districts of other major cities, or is St Petersburg special? Courtesy ping: Ezhiki. Certes (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done There being no opposition after a reasonable time, I've removed the entries. Certes (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

107 In other fields - uncited numerology

One of the points in 107 is "The Inauspiscious number, as well as the number of lethal acupuncture points."
A quick search doesn't return anything relevant for "The Inauspiscious number" and "lethal acupuncture points" is similarly devoid of useful information.
Is there a source for these assertions that I'm not aware of?
Dracoranger (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. Every result for 107 + "Inauspiscious number" contains "acupuncture" and was thus probably copied from Wikipedia. I'd say we should delete them before anyone finds the 108th lethal point and sues for poor medical advice… Certes (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

redirects for deletion

Please see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#-4 (number) for discussions of possible interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1027 (number). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

80,000

I looked at the article for 80,000. It appears to be just an article about the number alone and not the year. What I'm trying to learn, as I'm terrible at math, is what century that year belongs to. If my math is correct, it will be the 800th century...but I'm not sure.

I think something like that would be useful in those articles as well.

--Noah Tall (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Noah Tall: Yes, 80,000 is just about numbers, because there's not much to be said about the year yet. It will be the last year of the 800th century, on the bold assumption that something like the current calendar is still in use. Certes (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

144

144:

1+4+4=9 (3^2) - Pythagorean quadruple
1*4*4=16 (4^2)
9*16=144 (12^2=3^2*4^2)

9+16=25 (5^2) - Pythagorean triple
144+25=169 (13^2) - Pythagorean triple
144*25=3600 (60^2)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill Dubovitskiy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


The sum of the first 144 numbers of the number "pi", after the point = 666.
3.14159...5359...: 1+4+1+5+9+...+5+3+5+9=666 (without first "3.")
135+531=666
Sum-product numbers: 0, 1, 135, 144.
Kirill Dubovitskiy (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Powers of 10

See Talk:Powers of 10#Table length for a proposal which may be of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Centered octagonal numbers

I don't recall if there are any coincidences between polygonal numbers, but the odd squares are the same as the centered octagonal numbers. It seems unlikely that both facts should be listed in the number articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Begin original research: These seem to be the only identities between such numbers. (I can explain my calculations, but it's based on the roots and vertex of the parabolas obtained from the formulas.)

Should we include these in number list entries? For example, 8000 (number) § 8900 to 8999, the entry for 8911 indicates it is a triangular number, but not that it is a hexagonal number or centered nonagonal number. On the other hand, many centered octagonal numbers are called out as such, even though they are just the odd squares. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of positive integers and factors for a proposal of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox inclusion at Fermat's Last Theorem

An RfC has been opened for the inclusion of Template:Infobox mathematical statement at Fermat's Last Theorem:

Perhaps this is not exactly within the scope of this WikiProject, but comments are most welcome. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_6&oldid=1136522288"