Numbers | ||||
|
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Where should One, Two, Three, etc. take the reader? Currently we have:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Numbers | ||||
|
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Where should One, Two, Three, etc. take the reader? Currently we have:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)