This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Veracity of some of the definitions
Does anyone have any evidence that "0th" or "zeroth" refers to the following:
Note that these
wp:DAB-pages merely serve as a pointer into our articles for people looking for information through external or internal search functions. The idea is not that entries should be sourced—perhaps even on the contrary
. There really is no need for sources here. That said, OTOH such sources could indeed be interesting for adding a little sourced note about the usage of "0th" in the corresponding articles themselves. -
DVdm (
talk)
17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Surely, though, it isn't in the interest to our readers to imply that such definitions exist if they in fact don't? What is the protocol to upholding our
core content policy of verifiability on disambig pages?
El Chivo 2 (
talk)
13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
See
WP:DABREF: Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed. -
DVdm (
talk)
14:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
it's not urgent. if I have time I'll try to add some mentions in the articles lacking them. and of course anyone else can as well.
El Chivo 2 (
talk)
16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think “… for Dummies” grade books are a solid proof, try searching also e.g.: 1st OR first array item OR element is numbered 0 OR zero.
I am also convinced that the intro “0th or zeroth is an ordinal for the number zero sometimes used under zero-based numbering” is wrong – it's not related to zero-based numbering, but when that new first item (became “0th” to prevent shift of current numbering) was added later, or is somehow special (e.g. “0th” issue as preview/pilot).
Should move to zeroth because standard English first uses only letters for words and in relation to those abbreviates secondarily and (though Wikipedia isn't primarily technical)
standard technical writing is to write 'one' to 'nine' with letters and 10 and higher with numbers: would be same from 'zero' to 'nine', and same as
first isn't redirected to 1st.--
dchmelik (
t|
c)
07:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Veracity of some of the definitions
Does anyone have any evidence that "0th" or "zeroth" refers to the following:
Note that these
wp:DAB-pages merely serve as a pointer into our articles for people looking for information through external or internal search functions. The idea is not that entries should be sourced—perhaps even on the contrary
. There really is no need for sources here. That said, OTOH such sources could indeed be interesting for adding a little sourced note about the usage of "0th" in the corresponding articles themselves. -
DVdm (
talk)
17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Surely, though, it isn't in the interest to our readers to imply that such definitions exist if they in fact don't? What is the protocol to upholding our
core content policy of verifiability on disambig pages?
El Chivo 2 (
talk)
13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
See
WP:DABREF: Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed. -
DVdm (
talk)
14:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
it's not urgent. if I have time I'll try to add some mentions in the articles lacking them. and of course anyone else can as well.
El Chivo 2 (
talk)
16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think “… for Dummies” grade books are a solid proof, try searching also e.g.: 1st OR first array item OR element is numbered 0 OR zero.
I am also convinced that the intro “0th or zeroth is an ordinal for the number zero sometimes used under zero-based numbering” is wrong – it's not related to zero-based numbering, but when that new first item (became “0th” to prevent shift of current numbering) was added later, or is somehow special (e.g. “0th” issue as preview/pilot).
Should move to zeroth because standard English first uses only letters for words and in relation to those abbreviates secondarily and (though Wikipedia isn't primarily technical)
standard technical writing is to write 'one' to 'nine' with letters and 10 and higher with numbers: would be same from 'zero' to 'nine', and same as
first isn't redirected to 1st.--
dchmelik (
t|
c)
07:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply