This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've noticed that lots of the numbers articles have a template, while others (including the example on the project page) have tables with the same information. I personally, think that the template looks a lot better, but before I go around replacing them all, I just wanted to check here first to see what other people think. J kasd 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some functionality to the template, now you don't have to add the roman or binary numerals, it will just automatically generate them for you. (it ignores anything already in those fields) I'll see how this works out, and then add the same thing for octal, duodecimal and hexadecimal. If I have a huge stroke of genius, I might make one for factors and divisors. (not likely though) J kasd 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The range field is no longer necessary anymore either, next will probably be the number names, as soon as Template:Numtext is finished. J kasd 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a set of factors and prime factors to each article. can i have a go-ahead, or is this an excessive list? ne0pets22 ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My edit on 2008 was to add the Chinese zodiac definition, and it was (apparently) not appropriate for the article, although completely true. The main purpose of what i'm trying to do is to give a convenient reference point of factors, as most people wont take the time to look for an article named table of divisors when they want the factors for the number 155. thanks for permission though, ill just use the same layout as the preexisting tables and cite them. Are you guys sure the tables don't have any missing factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0pets22 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this whole thing is new to me, ill test out the numbers template in the sandbox to see how it works. ahh, so thats what it does. remember, that some numbers may have several factors. we dont want to fill that template with a load of stuff that would be easier read in the article body. ne0pets22 ( talk) 09:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran across 40585 (number) while looking through articles tagged with {{ Notability}}. In light of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers and any similar precedents this project may have handled, is this number "interesting" enough to have an article of its own, or should the article be merged or redirected to Factorion? --Dynaflow babble 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This project might be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#214_.28number.29 where the basic idea of one number redirecting to another (where it is discussed in a section) is being called into question. JackSchmidt ( talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Numbers rating has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 06:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created some disambuation pages for numbers, and then thought there may be guidelines, noting that there are a lot of number articles with the disambig contents in them. so i found this project, and i also see that "other uses" is discouraged, except for significant cases that relate to the properties of that number. I agree with this, and i would like to create more disambig pages for all those lists within number articles, but dont want to step on toes. see 501 (disambiguation), and 502 (disambiguation), for two i created (501 needs to be broken down into categories i think). wikiprojects are utterly new to me. how do i join? i couldnt find a guide to joining. (oh, and i have some familiarity with mathematics, im not just interested in the formatting of articles and contents. i guess you would probably have to be some sort of math geek (my self identifying term, no insult intended) to even care about the separation of pure numer information from cultural references. 6, 23, 24, 42, hike) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles. Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance." "Is often" seems to be "weasel words" in this case. That can be okay a lot of times, but NOT when defining how to treat questionable information. Is it a guarantee or not? I'd say not. In particular, I'm thinking of stories where the number in the title refers to the number of main characters. While the fact that there are a particular number of characters can be important to the story...as in the story would be drastically different with any more or any less (in these instances, I think it will usually be 1, 2, or 3), interactions based on those numbers of characters (or people in general) are so common that it's pointless to mention individual instances except perhaps as examples for a larger generalization.
I'm sorry if this is an old issue or one that's explained somewhere else; I've scanned this article and WP:NUMBER and am still puzzled. Feel free to direct me to another reference if appropriate.
Basically, my question is, why do these articles combine information about the number itself with the content of a disambiguation page, and plunk the whole thing at X (number) instead of X (disambiguation)? Today I was looking up an article which turned out to be located at Interstate 66, but to find it on the 66 (number) page I had to wade through all kinds of stuff like which athletes wore the number "66" on their uniforms. Why is there not a separate 66 (disambiguation) page for topics that are referred to as "66", as opposed to all these other things that incorporate, refer to or represent the number itself? Propaniac ( talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding: I've gone through every archive of this Talk page for mentions of the issue (I ctrl+f-ed for "disambig") and while I can see some discussion, I still don't see anything indicating "This is why it makes sense to put the disambiguation on the (number) page instead of on its own page." Propaniac ( talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: is there a reason WP:NOR is not applied to number articles, especially to the mathematical properties?
The example that brought me here, for the article 42 (number): "It is the sum of the totient function for the first eleven integers."
While this sentence is indubitably true, I'm not entirely sure why anyone should care. I'm not aware of any importance attached to the sum of the first N integers of the totient function, and I am also not aware of any reliable source noting this property of 42 (or 32, or 46 for that matter,) making this original research. -- Ashenai ( talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In looking through many of the articles for numbers, I’m appalled at how terrible and unencyclopedic many of these articles are, and I was wondering if there is any set of guidelines for what kind of information should be included or omitted from such articles. I’m just curious, because many of the articles I glanced at were garbage. Awhile back, I removed a tremendous amount of trivial information from the 162 (number) article. I went to that article to add that the number represents the amount of games played in a regular Major League Baseball season. Most of the numbers articles I looked at are pretty bad and contain so many irrelevant examples as to make the article nonsensical. Most of my following examples come from the 163 (number) article, but many articles are just like it.
Here are the following things I believe should not at all be included in any number article:
The list can go on and on, but I think the examples I mentioned are reason enough to affirm that many of the number articles— not just 100 or 163— are garbage. They contain little useful information, and that information is lost in a see of pointless examples. I didn’t read through all of the old discussions or comments to see if this issue was addressed before, but if it was, it hasn’t been resolved. I saw so many different articles with problems that I didn’t even want to take the time to compile them into a list. Could someone please give me some insight into why these articles are like this, especially if you’re someone who added all this garbage information? — Notorious4life ( talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
When considering the inclusion or exclusion of an item in a number page, the questions I ask about the item:
Applying these rules to the examples above, with NO (do not include) or YES (may include):
The rules and examples above are about inclusion and exclusion. There is a separate discussion about what belongs in a number article and what belongs in the disambiguation page for a number, but these rules and examples are not about that discussion. Obankston ( talk) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I arrived at 8 (number) to check info on the symbolism of 8 in some East Asian cultures to find to my surprise there was no info, even though I was sure I'd read it before in the article. Checking the history, sure enough I found it disappeared after moved by User:PolarYukon to 8 (disambiguation). While some of the info he/she moved may indeed not belong in 8 (number) to me it makes little sense that the info on the symbolism of the number 8 in some cultures does not. From what I can tell, this changes was also never discussed.
Looking further, it seems PolarYukon did the same thing for 9 (disambiguation) and 9 (number). This of course means things like 1 (number), 2 (number), 3 (number)), 4 (number), 5 (number), 6 (number), 7 (number) etc still follow something similar to the system before PolarYukon made these undiscussed changes. Why PolarYukon chose 8 and 9 for this special treatment, I don't know.
In any case, it also means the disambig pages for those two things are full of stuff which would not normally occur on a disambig page, and likely violate the guidelines on a disambig page. (It's worth remembering disambig pages are intended to direct people to relevant articles on the subject, not be a collection of random facts.) As I've said, I'm not opposed to a change but such a major change clearly needs to be well discussed, probably inviting feedback from outside the wikiproject. (There's been some discussion here, but there's no real conclusion or decision I've seen and from a quick glance at the project page, these changes don't follow the suggested format.) Ideally if it is discussed, then perhaps several users will be involved in the eventual cleanup work so that we aren't left with 2 pages following one format and goodnessknows how many others following the older format for several months or years. (Obviously this isn't going to happen instantly).
I for one, would strongly oppose what I regard as an illogical removal of highly relevant things such as a symbolism of the number 8 from our article on the number 8. If we only want to have things on mathematics, then we should have an article 8 (mathematics) which would cover that, and the article 8 (number) would keep covering things related to the number 8 that aren't involved in maths. I thought of just reverting the changes, but since it's been a while PY and others have made other, perhaps useful changes in the meantime, and I for one, am not particularly interested in having to spend my time cleaning up some undiscussed and IMHO very poorly considered changes to what are fairly important articles.
P.S. A thought occured to me from a quick glance at this page, can anyone imagine the hell following PolarYukon's changes to the natural conclusion and removing any mention of THGTTG from 42 (number). That in itself is surely enough evidence this is an exceptionally bad idea.
Nil Einne ( talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
More:
Incnis Mrsihas proposed some changes to the {{ Infobox number}} template, and an additional template to go on top of number articles:
Divisibility of 60: | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | /30 | ||||||||||||||||
Multiples × | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | specific | |
… of 10: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 12: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 15: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 20: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 30: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 60: |
Personally, I don't like either suggestion, but it's only appropriate to invite everyone to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox number#Multiplicative navigation. -- Radagast3 ( talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Tagging number articles. Gandalf61 ( talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A certain editor has been removing the "trivia" and "mathematics" sections of number articles, over at least the past 3 weeks. His edits on 3– 5 have been reverted, but it looks like he's done at least all numbers over 77, and some of them have had twiddles more recently, so that I can't easily revert them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been adding "sum of 12 consecutive primes" to various number articles, presumably as per the example (sum of 3, 4, and 5). I think this may be getting out of hand. Is it true that most numbers are the some of some number of consecutive primes? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Consider the quasi-lead of 230 (number):
Problems include the name being italicized rather than bolded or plain text, and the name in the infobox is "two hundred (and) twenty". My proposal:
Additional comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please check Category talk:Integers#199E03 vs. 199e03. It may be of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Nelly 5.0 about the usage of 5.0
76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Historical years" section for 2-digit numbers should be Wikilinked, in spite of WP:YEARLINK, as they are modified "See also" sections. If this project agrees, I'd like to bring it up there for modification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done a preliminary run for the numbers from 1 to 99, and I've noticed some of the following which don't belong, for various numbers nn:
Do we have consensus to kill those? I've also been trimming non-retired sport jersey numbers, and tried to trim some team and personal records, rather than records relating to the entire league or sport. I'm not sure about sports records of any sort, but I believe we have consensus for some of those to be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just using this as an example - I fully expect there to be lots of other instances of this but in lieu of trying to change them all, myself, I figured I'd post here. Maybe someone can write a bot or something to change this. Anyway,
281 (number) redirects to 280 (number), however, while 280 (number) links to List of highways numbered 280, the redirected 281 (number) (ie. 280 (number)) does not link to List of highways numbered 281. It seems like it should and indeed, it further seems that all List of highways numbered 28x ought to be linked to in 280 (number). The same is probably true for years, as well, since right now, 280 (number) only links to 280 - not 281. TerraFrost ( talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I find that 228 redirects to 220! How can I find the info for 228(number)??
Thanks. Cjfeeh ( talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Numbers WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers
Thank you. Pandelver ( talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of {{ pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . 65.95.13.139 ( talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whole number (number theory) has been prodded for deletion. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The usage of 1 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:1, to see if small numbers should be numbers or years. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I updated template:binary to accept numbers up to 2^27 (previously 2^17), and fractions, up to ten "decimal" points. I informed User:Jkasd of the changes already, but thought this WikiProject should know as well. If anyone wants to take a look at it, please go ahead. I essentially just adapted the octal template to produce three bits per calculation, while the decimals are a simple 2^x mod 2 calculation. It produces an identical output to the previous template for all values valid for both. There is also an additional input field - the second field can take a positive integer (0-10) to indicate the number of "decimal" points. If no precision is specified, it automatically truncates at either the 1s digit or the last significant digit of a decimal (eg, {{binary|.25}}=.012, while 5=1012, 1.3|5=1.010102, and 2.5|4=10.10002, while 2.5|0=102). Just thought I'd let you know of the update. VI WS talk 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The article 99999 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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) 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed the template for number articles for templates to remove "Number N is the natural number following Number N - 1 and preceding Number N + 1" and User:Arthur_Rubin reverted the edit. My reason for the removal was that, to me, it is rather like starting all biographies with "Xyz was a human being and had a mother and father." The statements are true and maybe even verifiable, but to me they just look like something a (not very smart) computer would say. I'm not going to go to war over this, but I just wanted to see what other people think of the statement. I think it makes us sound like a bunch of numpties, but I'll go along with whatever the crowd decides. Dingo1729 ( talk) 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a change to the transportation sections in 127 (number), 128 (number), and 129 (number) by consolidating all the entries on roads into one entry reading
What do you think? Would it be okay if I did this with all transportation sections? " Pepper" @ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The article 1909 (number) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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) 09:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the manually constructed infoboxes for numbers (in themselves a highly questionable enterprise), e.g. as in Million or 152 (number) usually link to the wrong articles for cardinal number and ordinal number, when they should link to cardinal number (linguistics) and ordinal number (linguistics). I won't do anymore manual replacement because I think those articles should actually use a proper infobox facilitating centralized maintenance for such issues. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just made the template {{ Integers}}. I put it on 31 articles so far, but it's pretty tedious. Does anyone maybe know how to make a bot to do it? ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Unrelated, but many articles have a manually constructed table instead of the proper {{ Infobox number}}. Is anyone working on that? ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, is there any centralized discussion of which numbers should gain their own articles, or is it every man for himself? I mean, 224 has quite a bit of information, (not to mention the Interesting Number Paradox). ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally, the higher-number articles which list numbers in a range (e.g. 300) seem not to have any consistent layout. This ought to be fixed. ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(By the way, feel free to post info between the above paragraphs.)
(I added similar stuff to the talk pages for "101" and "201", but apparently no one has noticed. I'm repeating it here in the hopes that someone who knows how to fix the template(?) will see it.)
The binary values on the 101 page shows as 101(subscript-2), the ternary value shows as 2(subscript-3), etc. These are wrong, as are the various other values below these.
The same kind of problem is on the "201" page too. Probably lots of other pages too, but I haven't checked. I looks to me like the html generator, when reading the "101" value, converts it incorrectly.
I'm using a recent version of Google Chrome.
Dr Smith ( talk) 02:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
FIXED
Dr Smith ( talk) 07:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
−999 has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've noticed that lots of the numbers articles have a template, while others (including the example on the project page) have tables with the same information. I personally, think that the template looks a lot better, but before I go around replacing them all, I just wanted to check here first to see what other people think. J kasd 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some functionality to the template, now you don't have to add the roman or binary numerals, it will just automatically generate them for you. (it ignores anything already in those fields) I'll see how this works out, and then add the same thing for octal, duodecimal and hexadecimal. If I have a huge stroke of genius, I might make one for factors and divisors. (not likely though) J kasd 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The range field is no longer necessary anymore either, next will probably be the number names, as soon as Template:Numtext is finished. J kasd 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a set of factors and prime factors to each article. can i have a go-ahead, or is this an excessive list? ne0pets22 ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My edit on 2008 was to add the Chinese zodiac definition, and it was (apparently) not appropriate for the article, although completely true. The main purpose of what i'm trying to do is to give a convenient reference point of factors, as most people wont take the time to look for an article named table of divisors when they want the factors for the number 155. thanks for permission though, ill just use the same layout as the preexisting tables and cite them. Are you guys sure the tables don't have any missing factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0pets22 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this whole thing is new to me, ill test out the numbers template in the sandbox to see how it works. ahh, so thats what it does. remember, that some numbers may have several factors. we dont want to fill that template with a load of stuff that would be easier read in the article body. ne0pets22 ( talk) 09:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran across 40585 (number) while looking through articles tagged with {{ Notability}}. In light of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers and any similar precedents this project may have handled, is this number "interesting" enough to have an article of its own, or should the article be merged or redirected to Factorion? --Dynaflow babble 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This project might be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#214_.28number.29 where the basic idea of one number redirecting to another (where it is discussed in a section) is being called into question. JackSchmidt ( talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Numbers rating has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 06:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created some disambuation pages for numbers, and then thought there may be guidelines, noting that there are a lot of number articles with the disambig contents in them. so i found this project, and i also see that "other uses" is discouraged, except for significant cases that relate to the properties of that number. I agree with this, and i would like to create more disambig pages for all those lists within number articles, but dont want to step on toes. see 501 (disambiguation), and 502 (disambiguation), for two i created (501 needs to be broken down into categories i think). wikiprojects are utterly new to me. how do i join? i couldnt find a guide to joining. (oh, and i have some familiarity with mathematics, im not just interested in the formatting of articles and contents. i guess you would probably have to be some sort of math geek (my self identifying term, no insult intended) to even care about the separation of pure numer information from cultural references. 6, 23, 24, 42, hike) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles. Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance." "Is often" seems to be "weasel words" in this case. That can be okay a lot of times, but NOT when defining how to treat questionable information. Is it a guarantee or not? I'd say not. In particular, I'm thinking of stories where the number in the title refers to the number of main characters. While the fact that there are a particular number of characters can be important to the story...as in the story would be drastically different with any more or any less (in these instances, I think it will usually be 1, 2, or 3), interactions based on those numbers of characters (or people in general) are so common that it's pointless to mention individual instances except perhaps as examples for a larger generalization.
I'm sorry if this is an old issue or one that's explained somewhere else; I've scanned this article and WP:NUMBER and am still puzzled. Feel free to direct me to another reference if appropriate.
Basically, my question is, why do these articles combine information about the number itself with the content of a disambiguation page, and plunk the whole thing at X (number) instead of X (disambiguation)? Today I was looking up an article which turned out to be located at Interstate 66, but to find it on the 66 (number) page I had to wade through all kinds of stuff like which athletes wore the number "66" on their uniforms. Why is there not a separate 66 (disambiguation) page for topics that are referred to as "66", as opposed to all these other things that incorporate, refer to or represent the number itself? Propaniac ( talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding: I've gone through every archive of this Talk page for mentions of the issue (I ctrl+f-ed for "disambig") and while I can see some discussion, I still don't see anything indicating "This is why it makes sense to put the disambiguation on the (number) page instead of on its own page." Propaniac ( talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: is there a reason WP:NOR is not applied to number articles, especially to the mathematical properties?
The example that brought me here, for the article 42 (number): "It is the sum of the totient function for the first eleven integers."
While this sentence is indubitably true, I'm not entirely sure why anyone should care. I'm not aware of any importance attached to the sum of the first N integers of the totient function, and I am also not aware of any reliable source noting this property of 42 (or 32, or 46 for that matter,) making this original research. -- Ashenai ( talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In looking through many of the articles for numbers, I’m appalled at how terrible and unencyclopedic many of these articles are, and I was wondering if there is any set of guidelines for what kind of information should be included or omitted from such articles. I’m just curious, because many of the articles I glanced at were garbage. Awhile back, I removed a tremendous amount of trivial information from the 162 (number) article. I went to that article to add that the number represents the amount of games played in a regular Major League Baseball season. Most of the numbers articles I looked at are pretty bad and contain so many irrelevant examples as to make the article nonsensical. Most of my following examples come from the 163 (number) article, but many articles are just like it.
Here are the following things I believe should not at all be included in any number article:
The list can go on and on, but I think the examples I mentioned are reason enough to affirm that many of the number articles— not just 100 or 163— are garbage. They contain little useful information, and that information is lost in a see of pointless examples. I didn’t read through all of the old discussions or comments to see if this issue was addressed before, but if it was, it hasn’t been resolved. I saw so many different articles with problems that I didn’t even want to take the time to compile them into a list. Could someone please give me some insight into why these articles are like this, especially if you’re someone who added all this garbage information? — Notorious4life ( talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
When considering the inclusion or exclusion of an item in a number page, the questions I ask about the item:
Applying these rules to the examples above, with NO (do not include) or YES (may include):
The rules and examples above are about inclusion and exclusion. There is a separate discussion about what belongs in a number article and what belongs in the disambiguation page for a number, but these rules and examples are not about that discussion. Obankston ( talk) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I arrived at 8 (number) to check info on the symbolism of 8 in some East Asian cultures to find to my surprise there was no info, even though I was sure I'd read it before in the article. Checking the history, sure enough I found it disappeared after moved by User:PolarYukon to 8 (disambiguation). While some of the info he/she moved may indeed not belong in 8 (number) to me it makes little sense that the info on the symbolism of the number 8 in some cultures does not. From what I can tell, this changes was also never discussed.
Looking further, it seems PolarYukon did the same thing for 9 (disambiguation) and 9 (number). This of course means things like 1 (number), 2 (number), 3 (number)), 4 (number), 5 (number), 6 (number), 7 (number) etc still follow something similar to the system before PolarYukon made these undiscussed changes. Why PolarYukon chose 8 and 9 for this special treatment, I don't know.
In any case, it also means the disambig pages for those two things are full of stuff which would not normally occur on a disambig page, and likely violate the guidelines on a disambig page. (It's worth remembering disambig pages are intended to direct people to relevant articles on the subject, not be a collection of random facts.) As I've said, I'm not opposed to a change but such a major change clearly needs to be well discussed, probably inviting feedback from outside the wikiproject. (There's been some discussion here, but there's no real conclusion or decision I've seen and from a quick glance at the project page, these changes don't follow the suggested format.) Ideally if it is discussed, then perhaps several users will be involved in the eventual cleanup work so that we aren't left with 2 pages following one format and goodnessknows how many others following the older format for several months or years. (Obviously this isn't going to happen instantly).
I for one, would strongly oppose what I regard as an illogical removal of highly relevant things such as a symbolism of the number 8 from our article on the number 8. If we only want to have things on mathematics, then we should have an article 8 (mathematics) which would cover that, and the article 8 (number) would keep covering things related to the number 8 that aren't involved in maths. I thought of just reverting the changes, but since it's been a while PY and others have made other, perhaps useful changes in the meantime, and I for one, am not particularly interested in having to spend my time cleaning up some undiscussed and IMHO very poorly considered changes to what are fairly important articles.
P.S. A thought occured to me from a quick glance at this page, can anyone imagine the hell following PolarYukon's changes to the natural conclusion and removing any mention of THGTTG from 42 (number). That in itself is surely enough evidence this is an exceptionally bad idea.
Nil Einne ( talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
More:
Incnis Mrsihas proposed some changes to the {{ Infobox number}} template, and an additional template to go on top of number articles:
Divisibility of 60: | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | • | /30 | ||||||||||||||||
Multiples × | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | specific | |
… of 10: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 12: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 15: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 20: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 30: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
… of 60: |
Personally, I don't like either suggestion, but it's only appropriate to invite everyone to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox number#Multiplicative navigation. -- Radagast3 ( talk) 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Tagging number articles. Gandalf61 ( talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A certain editor has been removing the "trivia" and "mathematics" sections of number articles, over at least the past 3 weeks. His edits on 3– 5 have been reverted, but it looks like he's done at least all numbers over 77, and some of them have had twiddles more recently, so that I can't easily revert them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been adding "sum of 12 consecutive primes" to various number articles, presumably as per the example (sum of 3, 4, and 5). I think this may be getting out of hand. Is it true that most numbers are the some of some number of consecutive primes? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Consider the quasi-lead of 230 (number):
Problems include the name being italicized rather than bolded or plain text, and the name in the infobox is "two hundred (and) twenty". My proposal:
Additional comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please check Category talk:Integers#199E03 vs. 199e03. It may be of interest to this project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Nelly 5.0 about the usage of 5.0
76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Historical years" section for 2-digit numbers should be Wikilinked, in spite of WP:YEARLINK, as they are modified "See also" sections. If this project agrees, I'd like to bring it up there for modification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done a preliminary run for the numbers from 1 to 99, and I've noticed some of the following which don't belong, for various numbers nn:
Do we have consensus to kill those? I've also been trimming non-retired sport jersey numbers, and tried to trim some team and personal records, rather than records relating to the entire league or sport. I'm not sure about sports records of any sort, but I believe we have consensus for some of those to be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just using this as an example - I fully expect there to be lots of other instances of this but in lieu of trying to change them all, myself, I figured I'd post here. Maybe someone can write a bot or something to change this. Anyway,
281 (number) redirects to 280 (number), however, while 280 (number) links to List of highways numbered 280, the redirected 281 (number) (ie. 280 (number)) does not link to List of highways numbered 281. It seems like it should and indeed, it further seems that all List of highways numbered 28x ought to be linked to in 280 (number). The same is probably true for years, as well, since right now, 280 (number) only links to 280 - not 281. TerraFrost ( talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I find that 228 redirects to 220! How can I find the info for 228(number)??
Thanks. Cjfeeh ( talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Numbers WikiProject members, please, this is being discussed at:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of small numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Names_of_small_numbers#Names_of_small_numbers
Thank you. Pandelver ( talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of {{ pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . 65.95.13.139 ( talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whole number (number theory) has been prodded for deletion. 65.95.13.213 ( talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The usage of 1 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:1, to see if small numbers should be numbers or years. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I updated template:binary to accept numbers up to 2^27 (previously 2^17), and fractions, up to ten "decimal" points. I informed User:Jkasd of the changes already, but thought this WikiProject should know as well. If anyone wants to take a look at it, please go ahead. I essentially just adapted the octal template to produce three bits per calculation, while the decimals are a simple 2^x mod 2 calculation. It produces an identical output to the previous template for all values valid for both. There is also an additional input field - the second field can take a positive integer (0-10) to indicate the number of "decimal" points. If no precision is specified, it automatically truncates at either the 1s digit or the last significant digit of a decimal (eg, {{binary|.25}}=.012, while 5=1012, 1.3|5=1.010102, and 2.5|4=10.10002, while 2.5|0=102). Just thought I'd let you know of the update. VI WS talk 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The article 99999 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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) 19:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed the template for number articles for templates to remove "Number N is the natural number following Number N - 1 and preceding Number N + 1" and User:Arthur_Rubin reverted the edit. My reason for the removal was that, to me, it is rather like starting all biographies with "Xyz was a human being and had a mother and father." The statements are true and maybe even verifiable, but to me they just look like something a (not very smart) computer would say. I'm not going to go to war over this, but I just wanted to see what other people think of the statement. I think it makes us sound like a bunch of numpties, but I'll go along with whatever the crowd decides. Dingo1729 ( talk) 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a change to the transportation sections in 127 (number), 128 (number), and 129 (number) by consolidating all the entries on roads into one entry reading
What do you think? Would it be okay if I did this with all transportation sections? " Pepper" @ 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The article 1909 (number) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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) 09:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the manually constructed infoboxes for numbers (in themselves a highly questionable enterprise), e.g. as in Million or 152 (number) usually link to the wrong articles for cardinal number and ordinal number, when they should link to cardinal number (linguistics) and ordinal number (linguistics). I won't do anymore manual replacement because I think those articles should actually use a proper infobox facilitating centralized maintenance for such issues. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just made the template {{ Integers}}. I put it on 31 articles so far, but it's pretty tedious. Does anyone maybe know how to make a bot to do it? ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Unrelated, but many articles have a manually constructed table instead of the proper {{ Infobox number}}. Is anyone working on that? ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, is there any centralized discussion of which numbers should gain their own articles, or is it every man for himself? I mean, 224 has quite a bit of information, (not to mention the Interesting Number Paradox). ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally, the higher-number articles which list numbers in a range (e.g. 300) seem not to have any consistent layout. This ought to be fixed. ypnypn ( talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(By the way, feel free to post info between the above paragraphs.)
(I added similar stuff to the talk pages for "101" and "201", but apparently no one has noticed. I'm repeating it here in the hopes that someone who knows how to fix the template(?) will see it.)
The binary values on the 101 page shows as 101(subscript-2), the ternary value shows as 2(subscript-3), etc. These are wrong, as are the various other values below these.
The same kind of problem is on the "201" page too. Probably lots of other pages too, but I haven't checked. I looks to me like the html generator, when reading the "101" value, converts it incorrectly.
I'm using a recent version of Google Chrome.
Dr Smith ( talk) 02:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
FIXED
Dr Smith ( talk) 07:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
−999 has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)