Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 8

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

"5100" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 5100 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#5100 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion for 142,857

There's a Requested Move for 142,857 to be renamed to 142857 at Talk:142,857#Requested move 14 October 2022. Please join the discussion if you're interested. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Harshad Numbers

So a guy named David E. keeps undoing my edits... Harshad numbers are not too common, because only 4 Base 10 primes are Harshad numbers and most numbers divisible by 4 aren't. Harshad numbers are quite important, and need to be mentioned on every Harshad number page, so that people will quickly know if it is a Harshad number. It is constructive. I am adding info about the number which can be complicated to understand. 68.150.64.128 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact Harshad numbers are incredibly common: every number is a Harshad number for every sufficiently large base. If you pick both a number and a base independently from the same random distribution, then over 50% of the time you will pick a Harshad number. There is no mathematical significance to 10 as a base. For many other more-interesting mathematical sequences, I would be happy to see the first half-dozen or so numbers in the sequence mention that sequence in their article. But beyond base-10 being uninteresting as a sequence (because base-dependent), the first half-dozen Harshad numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The IP editor has been going well beyond that point in spamming this boring concept all over our number articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on a relevant article to this WikiProject

Please see Talk:Kaktovik_numerals#Displaying_the_characters_in_the_article for issues related to display of characters and accessibility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Move trivia and disambiguation content out of number articles

Prompted by an AfD discussion about 224, I reviewed some number pages and found a great deal of content which I would characterise as trivia or pseudo-disambiguation content. For example:

  • In 218 (number), we find Area code 218, for northern Minnesota.
  • In 221 (number), we find Sherlock Holmes's home address: 221B Baker Street.
  • In 223 (number), we find .223 (disambiguation), the caliber of several firearm cartridges
  • In 225 (number), we find 225 is a track from New Model Army album Thunder and Consolation
  • In 226 (number), we find The number of ages Hanako has been alive.

None of these has anything to do with the number's mathematical properties, nor are they a cultural reference to the number. They are, at best, finding aids, which may belong on a separate disambiguation page (if they belong anywhere at all; cf. WP:PARTIAL).

I found a talk page topic from 2009 here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_5#Why_is_disambiguation_lumped_in_on_the_"(number)"_pages? which I believe comes to the same conclusion.

The Wikiproject main page is currently somewhat at odds with this consensus, where the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numbers#Criterion_for_including_cultural_associations section allows the following:

  • Under Numbers in sports...
    • Car numbers of teams that have won the Daytona 500 or the NASCAR Cup Series championship are worth noting in the articles on the corresponding numbers. - why?
  • Under Numbers in fiction ...
    • Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance. Really?
    • The high incidence of the number 47 in Star Trek is noted on the page on 47. It isn't any more.

I believe inclusion should be based on whether these uses of the "number" have any relation to the number as a number, rather than as a code, or typographical artefact, or label, or simple enumeration, or a trivial mention. Remember, the subject of these articles is the number. Take a look at 66 (number). Everything about the string of characters "66" that's not a mathematical property or a cultural reference to the mathematical object needs to go. If there is plausible ambiguity, an entry on 66 (disambiguation) could be created (and indeed we can see that much is already duplicated between this DAB page and the number article). If not, remove it on the basis of being undue trivia.

Additionally, most of these factoids lack reliable sources. Broader community consensus is clear on the need for sources that establish a verifiable, significant relationship between the article subject and the cultural subject in which it is referenced.

Now, it's not all bad news. Below are some examples of where I think a cultural association could be legitimately included in a number page...:

  • On 66_(number)#In computing, we find 66 (more specifically 66.667) megahertz (MHz) is a common divisor. This is OK as its usage in computing relates to its mathematical properties.
  • On 42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy, the number is notable as a number.
  • All of the cultural references on Pi#In_popular_culture, because they are references to the number and its mathematical nature.
  • Many (but not all) references on small integers where the cultural significance clearly derives from the mathematical properties, for example from the useful divisibility of 12_(number) and 60_(number).

I propose an update of this Wikiproject page in the spirit of the above, including some much clearer guidance on what belongs in the number articles and what belongs in the disambiguation page.

I would appreciate some feedback in order to renew this consensus, but in the meantime I plan to clean up some of the higher, less-trafficked numbers.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I think 117 (number) is another good example where the sourced cultural associations can be included, as something specific to that number, but see Special:Diff/1103967800 where I removed a lot of other material from that article that I think, if it belongs anywhere, should be on a separate dab page. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @David Eppstein & @Certes. What do you think about including references to atomic numbers of elements? I am leaning towards exclusion on the basis of these being an example of simple enumeration. Atomic numbers feel kind of weighty because they are a basic property of a fundamental aspect of the universe, but is it really a significant relationship with the number, rather than just using the number for counting? There are lots of really important things that can be counted... Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I would generally exclude things with serial numbers. However, atomic numbers do have arithmetic significance, in that they allow calculation of the electron configuration which influences reactions etc., so this one is a close call. Certes (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I also lean towards exclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Atomic numbers are not an index but an intrinsic feature of the element; on the other hand, every number up to 118(?) is that of an element, so that is not special to any of them. I would retain the magic numbers, which relate to geometry. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The mention of atomic numbers does suggest a wider rule, but I'm not sure whether it's too strict and deletionist: exclude topics where similar entries could be added systematically to most or all integers in a wide range, unless this number's item is significantly more important than others in the series. For example, atomic numbers fall into this category because all integers from 1 to at least 118 have an associated element. That would efficiently remove cruft such as bingo numbers and the okrugs of St. Petersburg, but might also remove more useful information. To pick a number randomly, for 97 (number)#In other fields we'd have
Ninety-seven is:
Congress, police codes, infantry division and character can go as they're not significantly more notable then others in those series. Endeavour might be a borderline keep as a particularly notable mission (but does anyone call it "mission 97"?), Madden is a borderline keep because it was 32-bit (does that make it special?) and 97 MHz is part of a fairly narrow range (but are the radio stations PTMs anyway?) Certes (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn’t keep any of these examples. The 97 in STS-97 is just a count of missions, and the notability of that mission is not relevant to whether it is a significant fact about the number 97 (it isn’t). The 97 in Madden refers to the year, not the number, so that’s also not relevant. Similarly, while 97Mhz may be a popular frequency, those radio stations aren’t referencing the integer 97 in their names.
Here are some counterfactual scenarios that would render each of these examples eligible for inclusion on the article about the number 97:
  • STS-97 was the only shuttle mission and it was named that because 97 was the mission director’s favourite prime number.
  • Madden 97 was named that because John Madden’s middle name was Proth, and 97 is a Proth prime.
  • Radio only works on frequencies that are Mian–Chowla sequence member multiples of one million hertz.
Clearly these scenarios are all nonsense, but hopefully illustrate that there has to be a connection to the number.
They could be candidates for 97 (disambiguation) but as you say they are probably all PTMs. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Although an inclusionist, I often remove newly arrived cruft from these pages but don't really have a guideline to back up my actions if challenged. We should move non-numeric meanings of digit strings (e.g. "225" is a track...) to the relevant dab (or a hatnote if only one or two other meanings exist), and remove the PTMs as we would if they were in a dab. Certes (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Dhrm77, pinging you here because of your revert of my edit to 40,000. Unlike some sport jersey number or score, that trivia is worth mentioning, because of the movement that stemmed from it. - I disagree. Nelson Mandela's prisoner number was not a reference to the integer 46664, which is what this section of the article is about. The source says he was the 466th prisoner in 1964. This is a case where the string "46664" is a code rather than a number, and articles about numbers shouldn't function as disambiguation pages. Furthermore, we already have the article 46664 about the concerts. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Well. I see you also removed references to the 68xxx and 80x86 microchip series... In this case, I say that if 46664 had its own article (as a number) there would be a "see also" referring to 46664, and you are right, it's more a concatenation than a number. But don't you think it is significant enough to be mentioned? I'd like to see others chime in... Dhrm77 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
My view is based on trying to distinguish between pages that are about a number, and pages that are disambiguation pages. I agree with your scenario: the hypothetical article 46664 (number) would have a hatnote pointing to 46664 - but no more than a hatnote, because this is disambiguation territory, not an additional piece of content about the number 46,664. Compare to Jam (Michael Jackson song), which doesn't need a "see also" to Fruit_preserves#Jam. Always happy to hear other perspectives. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
In articles, See also is for related topics rather than similarly named ones. So no, Jam (Michael Jackson song) doesn't need a "see also" to Fruit preserves#Jam. That link might go in a hatnote, but shouldn't in this case per WP:NAMB. Certes (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If we really want to make all number article strictly about the numbers, we should remove (nearly) all sport references, all international telephone country prefixes, all reference to roads, bus lines, train lines, french departments, any reference to a galaxy NGCxxx (all of those are numbered, and the choice of number is arbitrary), the reference to cannabis in 420 (number), the reference to sex in 69 (number), anything that's arbitrary like the reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in [42 (number)]], etc... I tend to be an inclusionist, but it appears that what has been included in the number articles isn't very consistent, and somewhat random. (PS: we were just editing at the same time, and there was an edit conflict) Dhrm77 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Without any guidelines, it's hard to be consistent. Do we remove everything non-mathematical? Is there an exception for anything unique or rare such as 46664, where we clearly shouldn't list every other prisoner by number but one is special? Certes (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, and I think this project page was about pinning these needed guidelines. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If we were writing Wikipedia from scratch then anything non-mathematical should probably be omitted. However, we have to bear historical practice in mind, insofar as Wikipedia is old enough to have any, and there seems to have been an implicit consensus to include some other uses of the number. This may have been a (possibly unwitting) attempt to make the number page double up as a dab, but without following MOS:DAB (particularly MOS:DABBLUE, WP:PTM and omitting references). If we do evict non-mathematical uses, we probably ought to split some articles into a strict number article and a dab (with the dab possibly taking the base name, unless anyone seriously still believes an obscure year to be the primary topic for numbers like 180). What do others think of the fairly arbitrary test of including the use if it's special and other numbers are not used in that way, e.g include HHGTTG but exclude +42? We'd need some qualifier to exclude mentions that some bit-part character in an obscure series lived at 42 Main St. Certes (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that the mathematical/non-mathematical distinction is a good basis for deciding what to put in. In fact I think it is a terrible idea, because plainly some numbers, 666 for example, are notable for non-mathematical (even anti-mathematical) reasons. Whereas quite a lot of the obvious fluff is actually mathematical: the Harshad numbers in particular (a curious misnomer, since Harshad is a property of numerals rather than numbers). I still think that my comment in Archive 7 ("items to be included and excluded from articles about integers") would be useful: distinguish between some property of a number/numeral from mere mention of the use of a number/numeral. This means that 42 is notable for being Douglas Adams' ultimate answer, and 46664 is notable in association with one of the greatest men (of either sex) to walk the earth. But '+42' is mere mention of a use; it has no notable properties not also belonging to +41 or +43. Wikipedia should be here to answer questions, and if anyone is looking for the dialling code for the Czech [thing], they will look for "dialling code" or "Czech telephone". If they want to know which country uses the code +43 they will look for "dialling code", or simply do a web search for "+43 dialling code". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that many non-mathematical facts should be included. Thanks for reminding us of WT:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 7#items to be included and excluded from articles about integers, which contains other good points. There was some support there for the idea that we exclude facts for which most similar numbers have equivalents, e.g. international dialling codes because most small numbers access some country. Certes (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
To an approximation, yes, I think all of those things should be removed from number articles (and moved to a dab page if appropriate). I think the required guidelines can be derived from standard Wikipedia policies & guidelines. In short, we decide what the subject of the page is (the number, i.e. the mathematical object), and then apply WP:IPC. Trivial or incidental mentions shouldn’t be included, nor should references to the string of numerals (which is what dialling codes are), but something like 42 would because of the many reliable sources attesting to the significant relationship between the number 42 and the HHGTTG. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I do believe it is important to include cultural, scientific, and historical associations aside from the main mathematical properties that are the essence of these articles. I have two main reasons for this, the first is that disambiguation pages tend to not be searched at all almost (tens of views for most pages at most with many having zero views for a week, and some with a few hundreds of views in given days, but compared to their actual root number article it is minimal. Recently many DAB pages have seen upticks in views, though). For example, the number page for 2 had 3,333 views yesterday on 5/1 of this year, while 2 (disambiguation) had only 13 views. That is a difference of three thousand three hundred and twenty views (!). Most number pages and their DABs are being viewed like this, though not necessarily with such a wide gap that is present mainly in articles for the numbers less than 20 or so (I hope these metrics are actually faithful, we have no reason to believe they are not I think, even though the counts of page views between number articles and their disambiguation articles are actually this disparate). Secondly, the pleasure of having a number article listing mathematical properties alongside other points in other fields is something I enjoy deeply (my personal feeling, and I think many other people do enjoy having such a variety). Having it all in one page, is very pleasant, especially when including references that are mixed (mathematical and otherwise; dab pages do not have references either). What I think disambiguation pages for numbers are best for are for the sort of tidbits like calling codes, dates, bus routes, military aircraft generations, ... as well as lists of songs and album names (since there can be so many, at least for the low integers), and other things like brands, TV channels, and the sort; even some bigger factoids could be included that could be interpreted ambiguously. On the other hand, having a number article that is explicitly mathematical with almost no other associations except for direct numerical cultural/historical mathematical associations (in the likeness of 42) is also very rewarding and effective, because it brings into focus the mathematics alone. However in this case, if we move all other-than-math points into DABs, then Wikipedia might only be serving a very select few people with extra-mathematical information associated with some numbers. Radlrb (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I also think it’s OK to include these cultural associations. I’m not advocating for stripping the articles down to mathematical facts only. The key point though is that the association must be to the number (not to something that just looks like a number), and must be significant (as determined by reliable sources).
I think the current guidance documented on the project page accounts for this, and I think we are most likely in agreement here!
I don’t agree with the suggestion that dab content should go on a number page just because it’s more likely to be seen there. But if such content meets the criteria for being a significant cultural association of the number, then it qualifies for the number page anyway, and if truly important perhaps a hatnote. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all here are in agreement, generally. When I say that dab content could hide information from people, I mean regarding important cultural points and otherwise, like for example, in the page for 5 we list the five Langrarian points in a two-body system. For calling codes, and more minor things, I don't mind for them to be in a dab page; but for something like the five Langrarian points to be put in a dab page instead of the principal article I think is counterproductive to the very goal of making important information easily and readily available for people to read (that's from an educational perspective, without touching on policy or guidelines). So that's what I meant by the DAB pages taking in too much valuable information, if it is going to stand idle and be viewed infrequently (for more significant points, of course, that is); this being said I think we agree that a point like this one would go inside a main number article (right?). @Certes, you removed a point I moved from "See Also" into "Miscellaneous" about the Five Families of the American Mafia. I think it's a valid, historical point to incorporate. Should we reinstate the point, then? Or go ahead and remove other points in-likeness, like for example the Keating Five which also invokes corruption like with the Five Families, but I noticed you did not remove this point. What do we think of similar points? Radlrb (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I tend to give the small integer (0-10) articles a little more leeway when it comes to associations, because they are so fundamental that their significance permeates culture and society in inexplicit ways. Something like the Five Pillars of Islam isn't really about the number 5, but I'm willing to believe that there is something about the nature of five things balanced in harmony that underpins this and also the Hamsa and the Five Seals and the pentagram and so on - their underlying fiveness is deep-rooted.
Regarding these specific examples:
  • Lagrangian points: this is a plausible association with the number 5 because it's rooted in mathematics (geometry), but it's currently unreferenced, so the significance of the relationship is not currently demonstrated. I'm not sure what would constitute a good source here - possibly one that explains why there must be and can only be 5 such points.
  • Crime families: the number 5 doesn't feel at all fundamental to this example. There could easily have been 4 or 6 such families. It feels like a case that merely uses the number, rather than something which is a property of the number or a conscious reference to the number. If there were sources referring to these families solely as "the five", then it could go on the dab page The Five. But I think Certes was right to remove this. N.B. It was also unreferenced.
  • The Keating Five: this also feels like a case that merely uses the number, rather than something which is a property of the number or a conscious reference to the number. There could easily have been 4 or 6 such senators. There is at least a reference, but it doesn't demonstrate that this has anything to do with the number 5, other than using it to count the senators. As such, I think this should be removed, and that it would be questionable on 5 (disambiguation) too, on WP:PTM grounds. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Dhrm77 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
What I meant was that I am definitely ambivalent about including some tidbits in the number articles that are not strictly about the numbers themselves. The problem would be to be able to quantify how relevant each factoid really is to the number. Dhrm77 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Then that would mean removing all these points from number articles. Isn't there philosophical value in having a variety of information together that can appease different people? N (number) article really means an article about a number, which doesn't need to mean a mathematical basis alone. In other words, how N (number) appears in our world. These other minor points should be avoided and moved to dabs of course. Radlrb (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the criminals were referred to as the Five Families. If that article had been linked then I'd have left the entry in. As things stand, I think it's marginal, along with several neighbouring entries that I wouldn't have added myself but don't see a clear-cut case for removing. Certes (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Barnards.tar.gz: I don't know, I don't agree with that all the way I'd say. I think all those things that are cardinal that are important can be included, it doesn't have to be about the number mathematically because then we are not being fair about cultural associations that have nothing to do with the number itself geometrically or otherwise. Five crime families were five specifically as organized by Salvatore Maranzano, as Certes pointed out it is specifically culturally defined as the Five Families . So it wouldn't have been 4, or 3, or 6. And it's a very important and well known number in this context. So it should be included! And anything like it. My opinion, naturally, I guess not shared necessarily but I think putting these in DAB pages is a heavy loss knowledge-wise. People don't go and read dab pages... my main concern here is mathematics anyways, but it seems we might overboard the dab pages, which won't be very useful IMO. People really don't read those... In some people's minds, they are important counts and it doesn't matter if it's not directly mathematical at all if it's still a cardinal expression of the number. I'm generally against removing any of these middle-ground (importance-wise) points. Again, moving points to dab pages that are about really minor things like calling codes and gum pieces or anything like that, that is a 3-worder or max small 1 liner. Radlrb (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How about this: for the first 20 number articles we can be more explicit in incorporating these cultural/scientific points etc. within the main article pages, while also reducing whatever is in there and only keeping really the most important such points that are not mathematical. Then, for article numbers great than 20 which are viewed relatively less, we can include for the most part only mathematical information, with a general "In other fields" section only (and maybe another section if there is really an important association made outside of mathematics that is more pronounced). That way we have a middle ground where, since many disambiguation pages for these greater numbers have average views closer to their root article numbers as well, so I don't feel as though we might really loose informational reach. Thoughts? And, maybe we can more explicitly have a statement atop an article page that directs users toward its respective disambiguation page (so not just a banner of this sort that is present for the first 12 number articles currently present from -1 through 10, and others more sparingly). I actually do like this idea. Radlrb (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think 20 is arbitrary. I think things like atomic number of elements can be included all the way up to the last (118). Deeply rooted cultural reference can also be included even if arbitrary, such as 42, 69, 113, 420, 666, 1138, etc...But anything that can be counted or numbered, is arbitrary or can change should not be included, like jersey numbers, top score, bus lines, road numbers, etc... Dhrm77 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think atomic numbers should be included at all. They are just things with numeric values attached to them, like bus lines or highways. The fact that there happens to be an atom whose atomic number is 37 does not tell us anything nontrivial about the number 37, because the same fact is true for all small numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think atomic numbers really are something special - they are not remotely like bus lines, which are numbered arbitrarily. The fact that 20 is the largest number of faces of a Platonic solid is a mathematical truth about a three-dimensional universe; the fact that 6 is the atomic number of carbon is a physical truth about (our particular) three-dimensional universe. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
But it's not a fact about the number six, because the existence of an atom with that number does not distinguish six from any other small positive integer. In contrast there are only five small positive integers that count the faces of Platonic solids, so those numbers really are distinguished from the others by this fact. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Then how about for the "Top Priority" mathematics number articles, we include these extra-mathematical associations @Dhrm77, that should seem less arbitrary (0 through 10, 100). I also agree atomic numbers should not be included if we are going to be strict about why we would include an association that is not mathematically related to a number. Might as well then include exceptional isotopes... no right; however, the only place I'd see an atomic number as relevant (following such a guideline) is if, for example, there is a special atomic property that arises in the atom (i.e. atomic radius, metallic character, ionization energy, electron affinity, etc. or otherwise) that is different or unique vis-à-vis surrounding elements in the periodic table (or of the sort; and would need to be connected to its geometry in some way most likely). Radlrb (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
No. I think the idea of any sort of "cut-off", up to which we put everything in, above which the rules change, is a really really terrible idea. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I would leave it as is, and remove some of the extra-s that are not really as important. However I don't know that we can all agree on that, so I'm trying for a middle ground. I'll keep thinking. Radlrb (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Another example: 100

(Aside: Is there a neat way to add all "number articles" to my watchlist?)

I removed the recently added "N is the maximum number of points in a competition scored out of N" entry to 100, on grounds of "ludicrous vacuity". The OP added it back, claiming triumphantly that only 100 has a Unicode character for "N points out of N". I don't think that is good enough, though it also highlights the "Unicode problem". Unicode is a vast enterprise, of huge benefit to humanity, but necessarily it is a bureaucratic process: it does not seek to reason whether the presence of this or that character genuinely benefits us, but merely to accomodate the wishes of various special interests, including for example people immensely knowledgable about a writing system unknown to 99% of the Unicode staff, but also including some totally whacky ideas. Thus any facts about Unicode should only have a very marginal effect on WP.

This is a useful sample article, perhaps: it is not excessively long and fluffy, yet more could I think be improved. I feel strongly that HTTP codes are not encyclopedic, since they are "mere administration"; the listing of HTTP code 100 was not true 100 years ago, and may well not be true 100 years from now, whereas the atomic number 100, for example, is a timeless scientific truth. I think the 3 entries under "Science" are well chosen.

I also think this good example where the article should include not only facts about the number 100 (as David Eppstein seems to think), but also about the numeral 100. I'm all against crudfluff, but I do not think that "mathematical or not" is the way to distinguish it. (Note that many statements about the *numeral* can be converted to 'mathematical' statements about the *number* by including "base-10" somewhere.) In particular, since 100 is an extremely important numeral there could be a section essentially listing the various different words used to represent it, including the Latin and Greek prefixes and so on.

Please comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(Hi @Imaginatorium, the easiest way to add all the number articles is to copy & paste a list of them into your raw watchlist: Special:EditWatchlist/raw). You'd have to generate that list, e.g. in a spreadsheet)
I'm not sure I understand your distinction between number/numeral, but I agree that 100 is a good example of why we should include cultural references in number articles. The number 100 is significant to humans because of our affinity for base 10. However, I think this affinity should be explained in just a paragraph or two, with a couple of illustrative examples (the Unicode character is an example, but probably not the best example). It's not an excuse to litter the article with plainly trivial references to anything that uses the number 100. Also note that when we include examples that reference the number 100, they must be a reference to the number 100, not just that 3-character string (this is why including the HTTP code is inappropriate - we have a perfectly good disambiguation page on which to include that one). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The number/numeral distinction is not mine: ref. Review of Hurford, "Linguistic theory of numerals", p. 640 first paragraph. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
💯 and 💮 were introduced in Unicode because they are used in Japanese culture for "perfect score" and "brilliant homework". 💯 seems to be used elsewhere as well but I don't know much about it, so I just wrote about school grading systems. 💯 redirects to 100 but that article now does not contain any explanation about why the redirection may make sense.
About HTTP codes, at least 404 should have an entry for 404 page.
--Error (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ve changed 💯 to redirect to 100 (disambiguation), since it isn’t certain that the reader would be looking for information on 100 (the number). Information about the use of that emoji could potentially be added to that disambiguation page.
404 has an entry for HTTP 404 because 404 is the disambiguation page, while the article about the number 404 is at 404 (number) (which also mentions HTTP 404 but in my view shouldn’t). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I tried to add that information to that page but they didn't like it. --Error (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not think there should ever be a link which has no possibility of adding information. Unless the hyakuten-manten ("100 marks") think links to something about Japanese culture, it should not link anywhere. Anyone who can read arabic numerals can see that it says "100", and they know how many this represents; what does it add to tell them this is the number 100? Please read my note about Unicode above: Unicode is a bureaucratic operation, not an intellectual one, and WP should strive to be intellectual rather than bureacratic, with less fluff than there is in Unicode. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Somewhere in Wikipedia, there should be an explanation of why there is such a Unicode character and what people actually uses it for. 💯 is not merely a substitute for "100" just as ℍ is not a mere substitute for H. Wikipedia should explain why, and if people use these symbols otherwise and that phenomenon is notable, it should explain that secondary use as well.
I think that Wikipedia should cover Unicode characters. I read your wishes about Unicode and Wikipedia. I don't find them compelling or convenient for Wikipedia readers.
--Error (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Possibly Emoji is the article that should contain that information, as it already contains an explanation for 💮. The 💯 article could then be a redirect to that section of the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines for entry qualification

The above discussion fizzled out... once again I find myself looking at what seem to me to be pointless entries. In particular, 900 (number) is cluttered with country calling codes, for most integers from 960 onwards. The guidelines currently explicitly suggest adding these. Is this really a good idea? Personally I would advocate a simple "No telephone numbers" rule (unless there is something truly outstanding: a famous detective story in which the telephone number, which does not appear in a non-obscured way in the title, was central to the plot?) If any telephone numbers are allowed, there is a curious problem: I have only lived in countries which use area codes starting with a zero (0452 and 0283, for example), which never appear, because they cannot be put in an integer entry. But other countries (the US etc) use codes not starting with zero, which can thus appear! Imaginatorium (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

When calling from another country, one omits that leading zero. —Tamfang (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but the codes do not in practice appear in integer articles. We are not trying to work out ways to get everything into the articles, in practice we are trying to reduce the level of dilution by insignificant bits. ("Trivia" is a tricky word: many items of trivia are fascinating.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz, David Eppstein, Certes, Tamfang, Dhrm77, Radlrb, and Error: - pinging participants in the above discussion. My comment above relates just to one very specific issue: telephone numbers. But I think a lot could be done to improve these articles with more specific inclusion guidelines: no "age of consents", no "numerical code for geographical region" (e.g. 75=Paris), and so on. Then the formatting desperately needs tidying up: 900 (number) for example includes lists of properties as phrases separated by commas, which looks awful. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Something Must Be Done, but I'm not sure exactly what. I'm perennially removing single entries – my sporting idol wears this number, etc. We're also getting new series which aren't obviously useful, for example the recent addition of Brazilian emergency numbers to the 1xx (number) articles. One rather tedious way to proceed is to pick a typical number article and !vote on each entry, creating a precedent for entries similar to those evicted to be removed from other numbers. We may even find some missing entries – for example, if we decide that the chemical element with the chosen number stays, we could complete the set. We need to distinguish dabs from number articles: dabs have their own rules, which can inspire but should not govern number article content. Indeed, for many numbers, that would just be duplication. Certes (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with this. Chemical elements are unique, so, in my opinion they are worthy of being mentioned. Anything else that can be counted or enumerated, and where the number is arbitrary, such as highway numbers, bus routes, train numbers, sports scores, sports tee shirt numbers, telephone numbers, etc... are irrelevant to the number articles. I'm not sure about NGC numbers (galaxies and nebulae) though, perhaps only if they are noteworthy(?) Dhrm77 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
We might make an exception for one or two particularly notable nebulae, along with perhaps the one outstanding sportsperson in each major global sport and a few other IARs. On the other hand, that might be the thin end of the wedge. Certes (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think what would really help would be a list of guidelines; any of which can be broken if reason calls for it. But being able to put just "No telephone numbers" in the rv edit would be very convenient. I also think we need to think of a way to encapsulate the obvious feeling that if any entry just automatically generates more than 10 other entries, undistinguished except by trivial calculation (change n to m, or "subtract 9 from letter index"), it is not notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I have officially given up on my past attempts to clear out all the cruft from the number articles after User:Scottywong's "no consensus for removing cruft" close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (2nd nomination) last summer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
That point raises a related issue: several new number articles in the neighbourhood of 300 have appeared recently. If they're notable then that's a welcome development, but it's something to keep an eye on. Certes (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I can see why you would be frustrated by that David Eppstein. I'm not sure if focusing on new number articles is necessarily as important at this stage though as it is to get some of the articles that are considered vital, such as 1, up to a higher standard (at least GA), so that we have something solid to reference back to. Improving articles also has the benefit that we have full editorial oversight, as opposed to nominating whole articles for deletion which requires wider consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
In my view, the number articles are about integers, not about numerals. Many cultural associations are to the numeral, not to the integer. We have some guidance here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Cultural associations. I consider telephone numbers and area codes to be out of scope on the number articles, because they are strings of numerals, not integers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that if phone numbers are culturally relevant and there is no disambiguation page, they should appear in the number page. If the "x (number)" page has a link to "x (disambiguation)", they can be moved there. --Error (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
9-1-1 and 555 (telephone number) are arguably both examples of significantly culturally important telephone numbers, and they were both already mentioned in the hatnotes of 911 (number) and 555 (number) so I removed their redundant mentions in the article body. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Probably if bingo nicknames for numbers or Smorfia meanings are referenced they should appear at the number page. --Error (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
They can go in the relevant bingo article, i.e., where the information is actually relevant to the article. Polyamorph (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
A good test might be whether the numbered items are notable enough for individual articles, like chemical elements. Bingo nicknames have only a collective article. La smorfia has no article at all in English Wikipedia. There is much more value for the reader in linking to Hydrogen, a substantial FA with hundreds of related articles, than to one line about Kelly's eye. Certes (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sample page: 15

I started on this page, removing entries I think do not belong. One at a time (except for sections) and I have tried to indicate the material removed in the edit summary, so it should be easy to find anything you want to disagree with. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's the way to go, pick an article and systematically work through it. I wonder if it's worth starting with one of the best quality articles, say [[1], and working to get it to GA? I'm willing to help with this any way I can. Developing the MOS for integers (see my comment below) would also be a good idea. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes! We can make this focus explicit in the project as well, slowly in the works since the beginning, I believe. Maybe, we can get the first twelve integer articles (−1 through 10) up to B and A status (maybe 0, 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 could be brought to GA status; 0 and 1 possibly to FA). I think there is enough information to bring the first 18 number articles after 0 and 1 to A and B status, as well as other select articles, and once they are well referenced with primary, and secondary sources aside from OEIS (wherever possible). Thank you for your input, Polyamorph. Radlrb (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at 15 (number), and then made substantial cuts. I’ve removed a lot of trivia entries that amount to usage of the number rather than information about the number. Plus a lot of pseudo-disambiguation content. I think the remaining point under Sunnism could probably go too. I would even remove the mention of 15 Eunomia, as the 15 here is just a sequence number. Happy to hear dissenting arguments. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This is great work (incl. yours, Imaginatorium). I think we can take an entire week to clean up most these entries in most number articles, quickly. I agree with removing the point on 15 Eunomia, it is not too exceptional; I would personally leave the point on Sunnism because it deals with internal cycles of the body as tied to lunar cycles, with regard to spiritual maturity and readiness (it is noteworthy I believe, in the same light as the requirement of 40 years of age in most Kabbalist traditions to be formally taught the Kabbala), these ages are taken as literal, mathematical clocks of consciousness. Radlrb (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
However, this seems to not be in line with the very guidelines that we've been speaking about. So, I think it is appropriate to remove, on second thought. Radlrb (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Overhaul of Template for integers

I think what this needs is a systematic approach, starting with overhauling WP:WikiProject_Numbers#Template_for_integers to make sure we are consistent with WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections - since that is essential what these sections are. Polyamorph (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Vital Level assessment of number articles

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Subpage 4#Add One half in regards to assessing one half as a Level 4 or 5 Vital Article, and possibly upgrading 2 to a Level 4 (from a Level 5).

Please join the discussion if you are able to, I believe this can give way for us to formally discuss properly classifying other number articles under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Assessment priority scale, where there is no true systematic way of rating many number articles larger than 10. Thank you in advance, and see you there hopefully! Radlrb (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

New number articles

Do we have any thoughts on new articles such as 305 (number)? Unregistered editors can create such articles, as they overwrite redirects rather than requiring a page creation. Certes (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think, as long as they are substantiated with good points, that they can be created. So far, these are a bit bare, we can try and find more information to include inside. We can tentatively keep them for the time being, I think. Radlrb (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
For example, I think 307 (number) is okay to keep, there are at least three worthwhile points in there. 305 is not worthwhile yet, imo. Radlrb (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

About

@Radlrb: I see you've changed the hatnotes on some number articles. Are they really solely about mathematical properties? Even if we remove cruft, much of each article is about cultural uses such as music and religion which don't rely on mathematics. To pick an example at random, 6#In religion mentions the Star of David. There's no mathematical reason for its having six points (some religions manage with just five); it's a cultural convention. Certes (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right, that's why before I had "primarily" in there, however it seems to not be too accurate as it stands. Do you suggest a different wording that is more appropriate? I mean to say that the articles are mainly focused on mathematical properties of the number, principally, and that other [main] associations should be based upon those mathematical properties, with Etymology and Symbology possibly being the only constant associations that need-not be mathematically rooted, aside from other possible extraneous [mathematically, and I use this term with some fear] yet important cultural associations, etc. Radlrb (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
What belongs in a number article? I know it when I see it but I struggle to define it precisely and concisely enough for a hatnote. Certes (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I returned the hatnote as it was, which maybe is just enough. Maybe, over time, readers will come to expect that the articles will only include significant extra-mathematical associations, and therefore this type of (experimental) explanatory hatnote is not needed after all. Radlrb (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Atomic numbers

I don't actually see value in adding these. They are not related to the properties of the number per se. I suggest this be removed from the template for integers. Any use in other fields, including Science, should be directly related to the properties of the number itself. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two people here that support keeping atomic numbers [that I can remember], aside from myself, @Imaginatorium and @Certes. Reasoning is, they can help with calculations, are scientific fact, and on my point of view, are inseparable from numbers in other ways, such as being [tied to] literal geometric expressions that are more or less fixed on variables (i.e. VSEPR theory, for example). We can have a vote on this. Radlrb (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I think @Barnards.tar.gz is leaning toward exclusion. My feeling is, that while atomic numbers are also an enumeration, deep down that enumeration is a reflection of more important geometric properties inside. Radlrb (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dhrm77 might also be in support, I don't know, he mentioned keeping special chemical elements that are of importance. I know @David Eppstein and @Tamfang mentioned above that they are for excluding them. Radlrb (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems like a personal preference though. There is no real link to the integers, they simply represent a system of ordering chemical elements by their number of electrons. While this may be used in certain atomistic calculations, we need to be consistent in our exclusion of extra-mathematical associations. For example, in 0 we have recognition that some animals display awareness of the concept of zero leads to the conclusion that the capability for numerical abstraction arose early in the evolution of species which clearly relates to understanding of the integer itself. Whereas the Chemistry section that I removed contained information on a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons, which he placed as the chemical element of atomic number zero and Zero has been proposed as the atomic number of the theoretical element tetraneutron which, aside from being unreferenced, are unrelated to the integer itself. As a scientist, I am enthusiastic about retaining scientific information in articles, but here I just don't see that it belongs and would be better placed in a {{dab}} page relating to specific uses of the number (e.g., 0 (disambiguation) which is already linked in the hatnote of 0). If there is justification due to the mathematical usage in atomistic calculations, then this usage needs to be explicitly provided in the articles, otherwise I don't see the distinction from other trivia examples, which we are actively trying to reduce/eliminate per the discussions above. Polyamorph (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree, that expanding on those very properties is essential, and I am inclined to provide them where they exist now, which is around 118 articles at most for atomic numbers. The idea I have is, as for a group G that would present some important property from or onto another group with an element n or set of elements a,b,c...,n, represented by numbers with a given relationship, that group G itself acts on these elements, and therefore extends a property on all those numbers or some of them and vice-versa, as a set, or function, etc. In similar fashion, an atomic property such as atomic numbers, reveals a geometric structure, and therefore, the atomic number itself is an evident property on the elements themselves, and exclusively, meaning there are no other atomic numbers or otherwise that generate the said properties. I.e. Atomic number of two fills the first electron shell, and leads to the first noble gas, helium, and in a s arrangement, with two protons and neutrons inside as well. However, you need 10 electrons, protons, and neutrons to generate the next noble gas, and the geometric arrangement of the electrons is not spherical alone anymore, it is a mixture of a spherical geometry, with a different arrangement of its internal shell model too, accompanied by 4 sp3-hybridized electron orbitals in its outer shells. This is a distinction, tied to the numbers 2, and 8, for a total of 10 electrons, for the second noble gas; and so forth. Magic numbers are special examples of these, and can be extended to hypothesized islands of stability for larger atoms that we have not yet seen in nature, or been able to generate. I view these as important as well. It is so easy to remove information, and much harder to retain, and improve information that can be of use.
This being said, it is not an ardent point, and I am okay with not including these as well if we cannot come to an agreement, however they are important examples of what can be easily and conveniently included to have a truer mathematical article that is of consequence in our real world, as these are examples of strict constants in nature, of ways in which numbers directly are affecting our reality physically, and otherwise. These are not personal preferences, that I assure you, they come with reasoned understanding, I am not alone in thinking they are valid points. Radlrb (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The example I referenced is in likeness of the example for 0 in Physics, which cites absolute-zero temperature as being of critical importance, here a temperature of near 0K or 0K leads to important effects on the energy states and movements of particles, and for atomic numbers, a given number of neutrons, protons, and electrons leads to a real consequence in the molecular structure of compounds, and therefore ways in which they affect matter around them. Regarding atomistic calculations, this is another example of the use of atomic numbers, also valid and important, I feel. Radlrb (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you've made some important points. I agree with inclusion of atomic numbers, provided these mathematical/geometrical properties are stated. I don't support a simple list entry that "n is the atomic number for elementium" without this, and the project guidelines should be adjusted accordingly. Polyamorph (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I am glad you saw light in what I had to say, and your concerns are entirely on point, thank you for bringing due emphasis. I will start slowly improving these additions with more detail, it might take some time, so in the meantime we could remove atomic numbers if the consensus is indeed to keep them only alongside appropriate geometric and other mathematical information. Radlrb (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Atomic numbers do at least use the mathematical properties of the integer. Organic chemistry would be very different if carbon had five protons or seven. It's in a different league from arbitrary serials like house numbers. However, as we start to clear out cruft like Poppy Singer lived at 6 Mundane Street, the atomic number is becoming one of the least mathematical factoids in the article, and my support for its inclusion is weakening. Certes (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I can understand that. Remember, I used want to keep basically everything our articles already had... ahah. I mainly have @Barnards.tar.gz to thank for that, he really got me thinking on it! Radlrb (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel rather strongly that atomic numbers, which are fundamental numerical facts about the universe, should be included. I have said similar things before, but I think the idea that the article on a number should only be about the "mathematical" properties of the number is not a productive distinction. In a sense (much of) "mathematics" simply is "about numbers", so determining what counts as a "mathematical" or "cultural" property is not immediately obvious (the story about Hardy's taxicab number, for example). @Radlrb: in particular has done a huge amount of work on these articles, most of it in the right direction I think, yet some of it highly dubious to me. For example, the Hatnote "This article is primarily about the number 0 and its mathematical properties." is bizarre. Normally hatnotes are to distinguish, e.g. the year (article 1729) from the number in general (article 1729 (number)). In this particular case I guess there is no 0 (year), and therefore no need for a hatnote. The hatnote should certainly not be a guide to editors, as this is. And looking from the user viewpoint, what are these (integer) articles for? I submit no-one in the history of WP has needed to look at article n to discover that it is one more than n-1 and one less than n+1. In the end these are list articles, collections of trivia in a certain sense. I think that the ideal entry should basically be a hook to an article which tells you everything you might want to know. For example, 6 should include the fact that it is the atomic number of carbon, which is where the scientific and mathematical significance of being in the middle of the second row should be explained. I really think it is of value to the ordinary, inquisitive reader to be reminded that element 8+2 is the inert gas neon. In fact of vastly more value than some of the tortuous, but totally "mathematical" facts such as "5 is the fifth Fibonacci number, being 2 plus 3,[2] and ((almost)) the only Fibonacci number that is equal to its position,..." ((just as long as you are careful to choose the "correct" starting point from the three available, and count the index from the "correct" value, both 0 and 1 being available)). I also think that the ordinary reader is important -- otherwise what on earth is the point? -- so that general accessibility should be considered. Facts about highly technical mathematical fields serve only to show the ordinary reader how much they don't know. (Enough for now!) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Having a list of facts, whether scientific or otherwise, is pointless. Any entry must have some explanation as to why its link to the number is significant, even if that explanation is relatively short. Several of us are working to expand prose and provide this detail. With regards to Radlrb's WP:bold hatnote edits, it's nothing that can't be fixed. Polyamorph (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
While the page for 5 has comparatively a relatively large amount of information, it is not difficult to understand, per se, given some basic principles such as prime numbers, sequences, basic graph theory, and even elementary polytope geometry, are understood - some of it is advanced, and that is okay, it is nothing to be fearful of. There are many articles in Wikipedia that are rather complex, even an article such as Quaternion or Coxeter-Dynkin diagram can be extra-terrestrial for readers with basic, and intermediate mathematical knowledge, after all these are subjects usually reserved for higher-tier undergraduate mathematics courses in college, if that (Cayley–Dickson construction, for example, is generally covered in graduate-level courses). There is nothing wrong with challenging the reader, and if page counts are any indication, readership has improved drastically over the year for integer articles, which is a sign that points are getting across nicely. If readership would have diminished, then that would be concerning. (While most of those views are likely from Wikipedians, I am sure it has sparked great interest for lay readers, and absorbed them into mathematics and number-theory.) It is true that overwhelming a reader can have an adverse effect, the converse is also true, seeing plenty of interesting information can take them into reading what they do not understand, in the hope of seeking higher knowledge and awareness of the subject matter (especially, when a mathematics article like 5 in its length is a novelty). Where the general reader is the most important, ascribed readers on the subject are also very, very important, since they are individuals who will in more likeliness do something with the information presented, in the field, directly. I will try and make the article for 5, and other articles that need it, more accessible, to your point @Imaginatorium; this might mean converting some points to bulleted lists, and improve prose as Polyamorph mentioned, and otherwise (such as moving some points to notes, as I have been doing, though the points mentioned at 5 are of importance and need highlighting, imo). Radlrb (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Power of 10 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Power of 10 to be moved to Power of ten. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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

One, two, three

Where should One, Two, Three, etc. take the reader? Currently we have:

  1. One → 1, a number article
  2. Two → 2, a number article
  3. Three → 3 (disambiguation)
  4. Four → 4 (disambiguation)
  5. Five → 5 (disambiguation)
  6. Six → 6, a number article
  7. Seven → 7 (disambiguation)
  8. Eight → 8 (disambiguation)
  9. Nine → 9 (disambiguation)
  10. Ten is a disambiguation page (the rest of One–Twenty are redirects)
  11. Eleven → 11, a disambiguation page
  12. Twelve → 12, a disambiguation page
  13. Thirteen → 13, a disambiguation page
  14. Fourteen → 14, a disambiguation page
  15. Fifteen → 15, a disambiguation page
  16. Sixteen → 16, a disambiguation page
  17. Seventeen → 17, a disambiguation page
  18. Eighteen → 18, a disambiguation page (but misspelling Eightteen → 18 (number))
  19. Nineteen → 19, a disambiguation page
  20. Twenty → 20, a disambiguation page

Should these be more consistent, or are they deliberately different? Note that 1–10 are number articles and 11–99 are dabs. Certes (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Following and preceding

The lead of 22 (number) reads 22 (twenty-two) is the natural number following 21 and preceding 23. Other number articles are similar. Is this sentence useful: do we really have readers who already understood what 21 and 23 are but need 22 defined in terms of them? Frankly it looks a little silly to me, and I'd welcome suggestions for improvement. Certes (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

For articles that are well developed, I think we can start generating leads that reflect the information within the article. At least with one point that is mathematical, and one that is otherwise, maybe simpler "n feet in x" or even more in depth, if cultural associations allow it. That way there is a more natural reflection of what information is being relayed. Radlrb (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a Bulk Move

I started moving the 1,000 (number) 2,000 (number) 3,000 (number) etc. articles to 1,000-1,999 (numbers) 2,000-2,999 (numbers) 3,000-3,999 (numbers) etc. I realized however theres a lot of articles have this issue. Examples, outside of the thousands which I have taken care of include:

The hundreds beginning at 300

The tens of thousands

100,000

1 million

10 million

100 million

1 billion

Considering that these total 32 articles, I felt I should leave a message here Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is usual to discuss such changes in advance, especially when titles follow a longstanding pattern. The page moves have been reverted and a discussion started at Talk:300 (number)#Requested move 14 April 2024. Certes (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware, I started tat discussion @Certes Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

300 (number) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 300 (number) to be moved to 300-399 (numbers). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Citing the aliquot sum of a specific number

Hello, I wish to cite the aliquot sum of 69 (number) (see the cn tag on the article). I could not find anything for this on gbooks or OEIS. Anyone know how I could cite this? Would be greatly appreciated, thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nvm—I did in fact find it on OEIS! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Types of prime

I've reverted several edits by 87.76.255.37 listing types of prime which I don't recognise and seem to be named for YouTube musicians. The same IP has made several trivial changes such as switching between "larger" and "greater", and a few other possibly constructive edits. Please can someone confirm that these types of prime really are not a thing, and take any appropriate action? The IP already has several recent warnings. Thanks, Certes (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The explainer in this diff seems to confirm it's nothing to do with mathematics. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. So these numbers are added because they are the Newgrounds IDs of bands or songs someone likes. I'll continue reverting, and a visit to AIV may be in order. Certes (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Blocked 3 months following further similar edits. Certes (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:One half#Requested move 17 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:One half#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense诉 13:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

One half listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for One half to be moved to One-half. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Interesting properties

Edits on the article 1234 (number) recently were disliked and questionable by some users; backgrounds can be seen in Talk:1234 (number)#Mock rational and WT:WPM#1234 (number). This curiosity leads me to question what are the facts not included in "interesting properties"? Do we have some guidelines or manual styles about this, or to put it plainly, how to distinguish between properties of a number that are very interesting? There are several articles, one of which is 59 (number) talking about the number of polyhedron classes or polytopes, each of which is 59 in total. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

The ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#User:Radlrb in WP:WPM, spawned from WT:WPM#1234 (number), is relevant to members of this WP, as User:Radlrb is responsible for a very large amount of the content on number pages. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_8&oldid=1243988772"