This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roman numerals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"The largest number that can be represented in this manner is 3,999 (MMMCMXCIX), but this is sufficient for the values for which Roman numerals are commonly used today, such as year numbers:" - Is there year 4000 problem. Because largest Roman numeral is MMMCMXCIX or 3999, ignoring vinculum. But vinculum can't be properly displayed on screen. Epochalypse2038 ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The original heading (Standard form) goes much better with the wording of the previous section - and also with our philosophy of "describing" rather than "mandating" a "usual" form that is accepted and understood (more or less) everywhere. Under the following heading we group all "variant" forms that "differ from the standard described above" - with a minimum of comment - just mentioning that they have "occurred" (been used at some time or period in a document or inscription). This kind of clarity is incompatible with any kind of attempt to tie down the inconsistencies of historical usage to a set of "rules" - which is why we ended up as we did. Very relieved that the attempt to go back to these was so promptly reverted by its proposer! Well done by the way. Soundofmusicals ( talk) 02:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm new so I can't edit but there is a spelling error where the page says 'the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) mean "18 century"' instead of the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) meaning "18 century".
If someone could edit this that would be great Taftaloka ( talk) 08:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed this bit, because (a) it is not clear what it means. Clues give words, not numbers, so on the face of it, this is backwards; (b) crossword setters play games with language, so unless extremely clear and significant these games do not belong here. Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Opening a question regarding linking Roman Numerals with sequences, and the Wikipedia article Sequences. NoelveNoelve ( talk) 11:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roman numerals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"The largest number that can be represented in this manner is 3,999 (MMMCMXCIX), but this is sufficient for the values for which Roman numerals are commonly used today, such as year numbers:" - Is there year 4000 problem. Because largest Roman numeral is MMMCMXCIX or 3999, ignoring vinculum. But vinculum can't be properly displayed on screen. Epochalypse2038 ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The original heading (Standard form) goes much better with the wording of the previous section - and also with our philosophy of "describing" rather than "mandating" a "usual" form that is accepted and understood (more or less) everywhere. Under the following heading we group all "variant" forms that "differ from the standard described above" - with a minimum of comment - just mentioning that they have "occurred" (been used at some time or period in a document or inscription). This kind of clarity is incompatible with any kind of attempt to tie down the inconsistencies of historical usage to a set of "rules" - which is why we ended up as we did. Very relieved that the attempt to go back to these was so promptly reverted by its proposer! Well done by the way. Soundofmusicals ( talk) 02:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm new so I can't edit but there is a spelling error where the page says 'the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) mean "18 century"' instead of the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) meaning "18 century".
If someone could edit this that would be great Taftaloka ( talk) 08:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed this bit, because (a) it is not clear what it means. Clues give words, not numbers, so on the face of it, this is backwards; (b) crossword setters play games with language, so unless extremely clear and significant these games do not belong here. Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Opening a question regarding linking Roman Numerals with sequences, and the Wikipedia article Sequences. NoelveNoelve ( talk) 11:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)