Talk:10/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 10. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Comments
I have never come across "X" as a hexadecimal notation for ten. As there is no equivalent for eleven, I am removing the "X". Should this be wrong, could whoever puts it back again please explain in what context "X" is used please. -- SGBailey 13:34, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
I notice that Number 10 redirects here. I suspect that this may be part of a standard for [[Number n]] to redirect to [[n (number)]], but given that it's a common short form of "Number 10 Downing Street", shouldn't it redirect to 10 Downing Street instead? I've just fixed the only two links to Number 10, which were references to 10 Downing Street, and I think it's much more likely that editors will use Number 10 to mean the house (or rather the British PM's office) than the number. Would anyone object to this change? --rbrwr± 17:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I would object. I see your point, but it must be solved by some sort of disambiguation. Either, "Number 10" should be a disambiguation page linking to "10 (numer)" and "Number 10 Downing Street", or "Number 10" should redirect to a new page, "10 (disambiguation)", with those two links.--Niels Ø 19:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Need a reference but no idea where to put it...
10 is 2 written in binary.
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.ngcic.org/
- In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:07:31, 404 Not Found
- In 1520s BC on 2011-05-23 03:34:42, 404 Not Found
- In 1630s BC on 2011-05-25 01:51:51, 404 Not Found
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:15, 404 Not Found
13 is not a semi-prime
In the "In Mathematics" section, this claim is made:
- Ten is the smallest semiprime that is the sum of all the distinct prime numbers from its lower factor through its higher factor (10 = 2 + 3 + 5 = 2 . 5) Only three other small semiprimes (13, 39, and 371) share this attribute.
However, 13 is not a semi-prime number and cannot be described as the sum of all the distinct prime numbers from its lower factor through its higher factor. In fact, the only semiprimes from 4 to 62,710,561 are 10, 39, 155, and 371. --108.47.0.42 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 10 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060223154525/http://www.tzemachdovid.org:80/thepracticaltorah/vayeitzei.shtml to http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/vayeitzei.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Looks fine--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion - Bill of Rights - first ten amendments
A reader wrote to Wikimedia suggesting an addition to the article, specifically that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, are a notable example relating to the number ten. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Article titles for numbers 10-100
Now that 2-9 were all moved successfully, can anyone reveal their opinions on how to deal with this particular article's title?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- As I already mentioned in talk:0 :
- "I not only support pages 0 to 99 being about numbers, but for consistency, all number pages should be named without (number) added to it. All pages about a year should be named with (year) appended to it. There is no logical reason for a particular thing like a year to be singled out as being the main subject of a number. For example, for 1984, we should have 1984 for the number, and 1984 (book), 1984 (year), 1984 (movie), etc.. for everything else. I believe that being consistent is more important than looking if the number page has more or less views than the year page."
- In short: Consistency: all "number" page without the "(number)" added to it, all "year" pages with "(year)" added to it, would seem to me the most logical choice.
- Dhrm77 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 20 February 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
10 (number) → 10 – Number 10 is the primary topic for title "10", with similar arguments to the 1…9 articles (see previous discussions for 1 and for 2…9). The dab page 10 (disambiguation) doesn't need to move because it already points to a spelling variant Ten (disambiguation). This RM is not intended to set a precedent regarding what should happen with articles titled 11 to 100, which are currently either dab pages or legacy pointers to the years. — JFG talk 12:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support per 1-9, per common name, per Bo Derek on a good day, and per nom and primary topic. Randy Kryn 14:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support all numbers through 100; no opinion on numbers 101-1491; oppose 1492 and up; 1492 and up should be about the year. Georgia guy (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support – I started the RM for 1–9 which passed, but I am less sure about this. My rationale was that 1 up to 9 are the base numbers (i.e. not compound) whereas 10 is made up of two other numbers as therefore less important as an article. I think we need to sort out the disambiguation for the number pages: should we have 10 (disambiguation) or Ten (disambiguation)? (note we have 2 (disambiguation) instead of Two (disambiguation)). Laurdecl talk 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Obvious primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note for anyone interested: I have started a CfD to make number categories the primary topic akin to the articles. Laurdecl talk 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bingo names -
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
decennium, decennary
The related words decennium, decennary should be added --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"➓" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ➓. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"−10" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect −10. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#−10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)