Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Flagship number article (12)

{{SampleWikiProject}}

We need to think about this. I propose that for this purpose we choose a highly composite number with lots of mathematical and cultural properties, such as 60. PrimeFan 23:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with the 60 idea. Less than 10 numbers are interesting too, in my opinion, because they carry lots of meanings and are usually linked to a good deal of mathemical concepts. 7, for an example. The bad side is that it doesn't show how a composite number is factored. slord 19:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

how about 12? Its highly composite and a little closer to 10. Numerao 19:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Twelve is good for this purpose. If no other numbers are nominated, then I'm gonna go ahead and designate 12 (number) the flagship article for this WikiProject. PrimeFan 17:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed on 12 - got lots of mathematical links and is highly composite. In my opinion, it's not that the other possibilities were bad, but this one is slightly better. slord 22:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then it's decides, the article on the number 12 is the flagship number article for this WikiProject. I recommend all the project members put 12 (number) on their watchlists. PrimeFan 18:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it's going to be the flagship article, we should fix the tags under mathematical properties....

Change φ to map to Divisor function and π to map to Prime counting function — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Number organization

I was going to random pages when I came across a number page, somewhere early in the 100's. I idly clicked forward repeatedly, to see how many numbers were done—when I discovered that 130 had no tens template! Hey, I thought, here's something I could do! I quickly made a template for the 130s, then proceeded to add it to the first few numbers in the 130s . . . then I noticed something about a WikiProject on the topic. After reading through the relevant page here, I discovered that in fact, you had decided not to make tens templates for tens above 120. Oops.

So, first of all, I want to ask why. Obviously making a tens template for the 53160s is silly, since there are no articles there, but six of the ten numbers from 130 to 139 has a page, so why shouldn't we have a template for the 130s? --Simetrical 05:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making that template. Thank you also for bringing it up here. About a year ago, it didn't make sense to have a template for the 130s. The situation has changed and you acted in a sensible manner. Thanks. PrimeFan 17:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three halves?

Should three halves be deleted? Or can anyone here think of anything interesting to put in that article? dbenbenn | talk 05:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If 3/2 has its own Unicode code point (like 1/2 does), an argument could be made that it deserves its own Wikipedia article too. Otherwise, I would probably support deletion. Anton Mravcek 20:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have its own Unicode character (that I could find). I'll nominate it for deletion soonish, unless PrimeFan objects. dbenbenn | talk 00:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to deleting the 3/2 article, I will second VfD. It's not a commonly used fraction (it is much more often expressed as 1 1/2 or 1.5) and it doesn't have its own Unicode character (though it can be composed). PrimeFan 22:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I clarified on the project page that fractions for which only composed characters are available don't merit their own articles (the Number Forms block provides a numerator one with which you can compose any fraction of the form 1/x).

For the record, these are the fractions that have Unicode representations in version 4.0 of the standard, in the Number Forms block: 1/3, 2/3, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 1/6, 5/6, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8. But the most common fractions, 1/2, 1/4 and 3/4, are in the Latin-1 Supplement block. In my opinion, we should only make articles for those last three. Anton Mravcek 22:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and nominated three halves for deletion. dbenbenn | talk 01:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It turns out there are already four articles on numbers of the form (n+1)/n. See superparticular number for the list. I've categorized them into Category:Real numbers. dbenbenn | talk 18:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I know I've posted this on most of your user talkpages, but I felt it was important to add to the project page as well.

I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Going postal

If you find the following articles as annoying as I do, please vote at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of postal codes in Austria:

• 2000-2099
• 2100-2199
• 2200-2299
• 2300-2399
• 2400-2499
• 2413 - 2491
• 2812 - 2852
• 2500-2599
• 2600-2699
• 2700-2799
• 2800-2899
• 7000 - 7099
• 7100 - 7199
• 7200 - 7223
• 7300 - 7399
• 7400 - 7499
• 7500 - 7599
• 8240 - 8293
• 8350 - 8399

--Woggly 09:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sort key

I think that the sort key used for Category:Integers should sort the numbers by value (0,1,2,3,…). To do this, I suggest that the sort keys all begin with a space, and then are followed by the following, where # is the number to sort:

Range	Key
0…9	E00 #
10…99	E01 #
100…999	E02 #
etc.

Comments? – ABCD 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Per comments on the category talk:integers page, the sort key as currently implemented required adding a sort key to only a small set of the articles about integers (maybe 30 out of the nearly 200 articles). This proposal would require adding a sort key to every article about an integer. If somebody wants to change this it's fine with me. Something should be done with negative numbers as well if the current scheme is going to be changed anyway. FYI, category:years uses a sort key of (-100 - YEAR) for "negative" years. -- Rick Block 01:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reads like a lot of work or a project for a bot. Unless someone wants to do it, I wouldn't suggest that one should be required to always do this by hand. Afterall if you want a sorted list, you are likely to find that in an article. -- User:Docu

For the negative numbers, the following (preceded by a space):

Number	Key
-1	-E99 9
-2	-E99 8
-3	-E99 7
…
-10	-E98 90
-11	-E98 89
…

Also, I am willing to create a bot to update, if this is the consensus. – ABCD 17:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Limit

The project stated that all numbers up to 256 should have their own article, but this border is, of course, arbitrary. Since currently most numbers up to 200 do have their articles, and most from 201-256 do not (and are instead covered in the list at #200), I believe reducing this border is appropriate. Radiant_* 11:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 200 as a limit makes more sense than 256, since it has always been said that these number articles should be written by humans and not computers. Besides, it matches the numbers project in the Slovene Wikipedia. Anton Mravcek 17:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think 1-100 would have been fine (we are already beyond that). As long as there isn't enough content to make an article of its own, I would leave the information on the page for the 100s/1000s etc. Once there is, create the article. Currently, for the numbers 200-300, there is more available for those above 256. -- User:Docu

• All articles exist up to 101. Most articles exist up to 150. After that, it becomes sketchy. I think we should leave it at that and not create the 102-199 articles unless there's something special about the number. When I have more time I'll check the 150+ articles, and merge them if they're stubs. I've already merged all 200+ articles that contained only trivial information. Radiant_* 11:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Can someone confirm please that the following articles are useful: 1089, 1729, 142857, 222, 235, 239, 255, 256, 260, 273, 420, 451, 496, 6174?

I will vouch for 239, 496 and 1729. PrimeFan 20:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will vouch for 255 and 142857, but my vote isn't as big as PrimeFan's Scythe33 01:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to change the names of articles that aren't truly about the mathematical number, e.g. 1001, 1138, 360, 666, 69105, and possibly others - simply to make it more clear in Category:Integers that they're different. How about renaming 666 (number) to 666 (cultural number) or something like that? And 360 (number) to 360 (disambiguation)? (of course this will leave 360 (number) as a redirect) Radiant_* 11:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, welcome to the WikiProject Numbers. Are there particular fields in which you want to develop the numbers pages ? Number pages may include information from numerous fields, including mathematics.

There has been a lengthy discussion on how to title and what to include in number pages. If you have the time, you might want to look at the history. In conclusion, the article title should be 360 (number) rather than 360 or Three hundred (and) sixty or 360 (disambiguation). The "other fields" section generally includes what might be on disambiguation pages.

If you redirect a number page, please redirect it to the hundreds, rather than, e.g. 365 (number) to 300s rather than another redirect Mean tropical year. Double redirects don't work. If there isn't much content, you might want to add the {{num-stub}} tag to the article.

If you want us to look at articles, you might want to provide us wikilinks to those. You can make them with pairs of square brackets, e.g. [[1001 (number)]] which renders 1001 (number). 1001 (number) is a fine page BTW, I'm sure it could be expanded and maybe formatted a bit closer to the others, but it wont need the {{num-stub}} tag.

If you want to work on the categorization, you might create one for articles with substantial non-mathematics sections. -- User:Docu

• • Ok, thanks for explaining that. Radiant_* 08:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions / Category:Prime numbers

It appears that the definition of this category was changed just now and the category nearly emptied without going through the usual deletion procedure. Should we expand this category and reverse the changes (removal of all number articles)? -- User:Docu

It was voted on at Categories for deletion, along with categories for other kinds of numbers. PrimeFan 20:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but I didn't find it. There is a series of others Radiant just listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#More_number_categories (April 14), there was a series at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#April_10 and other earlier one (April 6). -- User:Docu

• Hi there. Yes, that was my doing. But note that there were only six or seven prime numbers in there to begin with. Since most prime numbers do not have articles (indeed, only an infinitesimally small number of prime numbers can ever have articles :) ), I do believe this is more appropriately covered in List of prime numbers. Discussion welcome, of course. Radiant_* 08:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in this case categories are not very useful. If a given number is say, a cuban prime, it should be mentioned in the body of the number article anyway. Anton Mravcek 21:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, there were 11 entries on April 6. Personally, I'd keep this one with the number articles listed. The category is not too small or the concept too complicated (as least for me). Besides, it saves preparing a category for composite numbers. -- User:Docu

• Cat:Primes? It's not marked for deletion since it contains a number of articles on theory, rather than links to numbers. My problem is that 'category:primes' will never be comprehensive because most prime numbers, don't have their own articles. I don't mean it will be too small or too complicated, I just mean that the information would be better represented in another fashion (e.g. a list, or the main article Prime number). Same reasoning for all those cats, basically. Radiant_* 07:38, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be concerned with comprehensiveness as most of the categories aren't exhaustive. Imagine deleting "Category:Years" or "Category:Integers" just because we wont have articles for all years! A criteria could be how much the article says about the primeness of the number. As the article numbers do tell different things about a specific prime number, I'd keep the category on all of them. --User:Docu
  • Categories in general are either broad or specific. "Years" and "Integers" are broad categories (because they aren't a subset of anything). Specific categories are generally supposed to be exhaustive (e.g. "US Aircraft", "Nobel prize winners", "Parks in London"). "Primes" would be specific, yet it can never be exhaustive. Also, an article should not be in a category AND its subcategory (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Yet every prime is also integer. Radiant_* 11:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • Which part of the article you cite supports your interesting thoughts on exhaustiveness? An article can be in categories that cover different aspects, e.g. "integers" and "number stubs". Anyways, do you agree that the articles do in fact provide specific information about specific prime numbers? -- User:Docu
  • It doesn't, that's just my observation. Wikipedia:Categorization refers to 'an article should not be in a category AND its subcategory' (sorry if I was unclear about that). Primes is a subset of integers. Number stubs is neither a subset nor a superset of integers. Anyway it may be useful at this point if we agree to disagree, and ask the opinion of other people in the wikiproject.
  • I do find the individual number articles informative (in particular, then 3000, 50000 etc lists, but I see the usefulness of articles on every small number). HTH Radiant_* 08:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Number stubs

Can someone confirm please that the following articles are useful: 1089, 142857, 222, 235, 255, 256, 260, 273, 420, 451, 6174? If not, they should be merged with the appropriate hundred or thousand article. Radiant_* 14:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links to the articles: 1089, 142857, 222, 235, 255, 256, 260, 273, 420, 451, 6174 (number). -- User:Docu

Some are bit short, e.g. 235 (number): it could be merged unless we expand it, but should at least have the number-stub tag.

Others, just passed the stub status (according to Talk:420 (number)).

Further, there are some that have information not necessarily needing to be in the number article (e.g. 260 (number), 6174 (number)), but that wouldn't fit on the hundreds/thousands page and is at it's easier to find where it's now. 1089 (number) and 142857 (number) might be in this case as well.

From 200 (number), 221 and 250 might be worth spinning off. -- User:Docu

• Thank you. Remaining checklist: 222, 235, 255, 256, 273, 451 - and I'll take a look at 221 and 250. Radiant_* 18:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • 221, 250 split. Radiant_* 09:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the remaining ones would might fit in my previous categories. -- User:Docu

Requested moves

Under current Wikipedia:Requested moves:Relevant policies and guidelines if a "number page" is put forward to be moved to a new name, mention of the move should be placed on this page under this section.

These pages will be move after five days if people support the move on the talk page of the article to be moved. They will not be moved if people oppose the move (See Wikipedia:Requested moves)

• Talk:3 (number) – 3 → AD 3 and 3 (number) → 3 – {This actually sounds more natural with numbers under 100; does anyone ever say "This happened in 3"?? Georgia guy 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• • On grounds of consistency, oppose the move. It has been generally established that ### refers to a year, and ### (number) refers to a number. Radiant_* 08:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also have to oppose this move. Naming for number articles was already decided last year, and N (number) was agreed on by a sufficiently large margin. PrimeFan 00:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes should be placed to the talk page of any page added here. Any entries here are only to inform anyone monitoring this page that a WP:RM move of a number page has been proposed which may be contrary to the WikiProject Numbers policy. Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

add any more "Requested moves" above this message

Discussion on moves

This section is for moves in general please place specific arguments on the talk page of the page to be moved.

An section like this exists for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. So I have added one here in the hope that requested moves like the current one can be highlighted for those interested in the project and stop random re-naming of pages without the people who monitor this page (and project) being aware of it.

If this talk page is archived please create a similar section on the new page so that a link to his section from Wikipedia:Requested moves will still work. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saros numbers: what to do?

All pages now have long sections about Saros numbers, but there isn't a table elsewhere in Wikipedia with them. Personally, I reformatted some of the "Science" sections with the long "Astronomy" part into "Astronomy" sections, e.g. 87 (number), but possibly we could shorten this more. -- User:Docu

• How about creating a table at Saros number listing the lot of them (in addition to the sections currently existing). Radiant_* 10:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Years and numbers

There have been a few sporadic discussions of this recently. I'd like to see all of the digits at the default artucle/redirect for 0 through 9; and we should rethink how we redirect people to year articles. The primary reason for leaving years at the default NNNN artielc is to make linking of dates easy. We can still consider whether we want that to be the article proper, or a redirect from NNNN --> NNNN AD, AD NNNN, or NNNN (year). +sj + 19:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, we could, but that is more appropriately discussed in any WikiProject on history. This one discusses math. Also, it has an established standard for quite a while, so your odds of changing it are suboptimal. Radiant_* 20:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template

I found this: Template:Numbers. I've stuck it on the main project page so that people can look at it. I think it's useful, but it may require a bit of editing as it seems overly large. What do you think? Radiant_* 12:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know if this template was intended for any page about numbers, or for pages about kinds of numbers? Anton Mravcek 20:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Judging by its content, the latter. However, it is not presently in use, so it could be adopted to either (but sticking it on 47 (number) and the like doesn't really sound like a good idea to me). Or ask the guy (gal) who wrote it. Radiant_* 07:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked User:Stevertigo about it. Anton Mravcek 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi people. First of all I'm not a mathie ~ just a newbie with some interest in organizing and consolidating information geared for a newbie perspective. Organizing info by some kind of order doesnt always work for conceptual items, but inasmuch as some can be so organized, then I think its useful. Of course it could be split up into basic/comprehensive versions, or the complex number extensions can have some more detailed descriptions added, but it is what it is, ATP, and Im very curious what you mathies think about its use etc. Will read comments above later, when I have time -SV|t 05:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

9 on VFD: is this for real?

An anonymous user has nominated the article on the number 9 for deletion. User:Robert Happelberg (who has contributed most of the "In religion" items to the number articles) has already put in a keep vote, but I'm wondering if this even merits any kind of response. Anton Mravcek 20:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• I guess. The nomination sounds like it's a joke (or WP:POINT attempt) and I find it rather cowardly that the nominator hides behind anonymity for that. But it's no big deal, this won't get any kind of consensus for deletion. Radiant_* 07:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fonts with text figures

Numerao has added lines "In fonts with text figures, numeral N has ascenders/descenders" to the articles on 0 to 9 and put in an example of that numeral in context with differently ascending or descending numbers in the Georgia font. They show up fine on my computer, but I wonder how they might look like for people whose browsers don't have Georgia. Anton Mravcek 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too have the Georgia font, but there's no telling how many people might not have it, or any font with text figures for that matter. For the time being, I think we might have to resort to text as graphics. PrimeFan 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quantity and Template:Structure

Template:Quantity and Template:Structure have both been listed for deletion at Templates for deletion. I don't know enough about mathmatical topics to know how coherent the topics are in either template, so I am requesting that some editors with some math knowledge visit TFD and offer their input to the discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

3.14

The article for this number is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3.14. Uncle G 02:01:33, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. PrimeFan 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Number articles up for deletion

• List of numbers ordered by Google rating (discussion)
• 99999999 (discussion)
• List of numbers that are not primes (discussion)
• 31999998 (discussion)

The aforementioned articles are all up for deletion. Uncle G 02:18:00, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

• 1984 (number) (discussion)

The aforementioned article is up for deletion. Uncle G 15:42:25, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

other feidls need to be sorted

all the other feilds listings for 1 to 9 and for some popular numbers like 42 need to be cleaned up and sorted real bad. atomic number of molyibdenum was way down the list at 42, and 4 had some crap about "the number that always wins" (whatever that means). Numerao 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

relationship between number and glyph

The articles on the numbers that are represented by single digits in the decimal system start out with a section on "Evolution of the glyph". This is great information (in fact I'd opened the article on the number three specifically to find out how the glyph evolved), but it should be presented differently. The article is first and foremost about the number three, as reflected both in its title and in the announcement "This article discusses the number three." It goes on to say that "3" is also a glyph, but it never says that this is the glyph used to represent the number three in a certain representational system; it doesn't even refer to that system. Thus, by starting out with "Evolution of the glyph", as if this were the glyph for the number three, without specifying the relationship between the number and this particular glyph, the article perpetuates the confusion between numbers and their particular representations that exists in many minds. This is bad in two respects; a) I find that many people have difficulty understanding e.g. the binary system because this distinction isn't clear to them, and b) this is very Eurocentric, since the number three is represented quite differently by many, probably most people on Earth. So, I'm not suggesting to remove this information, it's very interesting and this is certainly the place where one would come to look for it, but it needs to be introduced as information about one particular graphical representation of the number three, and I also tend to think it should be further along in the article, after the facts about the number itself. Joriki 10:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the glyph stuff should be moved further down. In the outline of the template on the project page, information on the glyph belongs with 2. Extramathematical properties, although I guess 1.1 Representation (decimal, Roman, Mayan, hexadecimal, etc.) could be argued for as well. 4pq1injbok 19:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose it be placed after Mathematical Properties, but before any other fields. Anton Mravcek 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and moving this section below In mathematics. I'm also renaming it to The Arabic glyph as a step toward making a clear distinction between the number and its glyph in one particular system, but more should probably be done to this end. (Furthermore, the section has text figures and 7-segment stuff as well; it's not just evolution.) 4pq1injbok 03:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Teh indians might have a problem with calling it "arabic" glyph. But the alternatives are verbose. Indo-arabic numeral? Indo-euro-arab? Also, the text figures and 7-segment stuff has evolution. Their was a time 3 was ascender in text figs, and their were diffrent version of 0 and 6 in old 7-segment. Numerao 22:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

True, it's not a perfect solution to call it the Arabic glyph, but that is the commonest term (in particular Wikipedia's article on these numberals is at Arabic numerals). As for removing evolution, this title doesn't preclude discussion of the evolution of the glyph; by contrast, there's nothing evolutionary about e.g. the discussion of text figures on 2, so that a section title about evolution wouldn't be as appropriate there. 4pq1injbok 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

something quaternary?

The article for 4 has a heading "something quaternary." what's that all about? Numerao 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like a step towards, basically, sorting the other fields section (as you suggest needs to be done) by moving significant groups of four into their own section. The name's not ideal---groups of four or sets of four or something would be better---and it probably should be a subsection of other fields. 4pq1injbok 22:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I volunteer to do the sorting. I will start tomorrow with 1, go at a pace of one per day, go up to 20, then skip over to the "famous" numbers (e.g., 42, 101, etc.) Anton Mravcek 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

404 as redirect?

404 (number) currently redirects to 404 error -- that doesn't conform with any other number pages. What was the rationale for this? I'd think 404 should redirect to 400 instead until there's enough other stuff on the number to merit its own article, as per our usual practice. The HTTP error is prominently mentioned in 404's entry on 400. Note also the existence of 404 (disambiguation). 4pq1injbok 03:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

From a mathematical point of view, 404 does not appear to be a particularly interesting number. It's a Mertens function zero, a nontotient and a noncototient, but a lot of its even neighbors share those properties.

Even though 404 is close to 400, I would still like a redirect to 400 (number) take the screen directly to 404, rather than to the top of the page. PrimeFan 20:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be possible (nor even likely to be implemented soon: [1]). Is simply redirecting to 400 good enough? 4pq1injbok 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Lost Numbers

Could someone who watches the television series Lost explain what is so significant about 4 + 8 + 15 + 16 + 23 + 42 = 108? PrimeFan 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)#The Numbers explains it.

Of course! I will read that section. Thanks. PrimeFan 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC: Numbers in Currency

I've added a draft paragraph to the project page on the issue of numbers in currency. One of the issues that needs to be worked out is what information on currency is worth noting in the number articles and which information need only be mentioned at the article on the bill or coin in question.

There is no doubt in my mind that the article on 5 should mention that 5 is a common denomination of currency in many countries. Whether a greater level of detail should be desired or repudiated is an issue that ought now to be discussed.

User:Noe is concerned that the page could be inundated with information on every 5 dollar/pound/peso/mark/yen bill and 5 cent coin there is in the world. PrimeFan 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:PrimeFan for taking this discussion to the proper location; his representation of my view is accurate. By the way, if 5 (number) mentions coins/notes at all, so should e.g. 3 (number) (in the Soviet Union, this was a common denomination; perhaps it still is in Russia and elsewhere. Although less common than 5, it is no less interesting - by virtue of its relative rarity, and because it doesn't divide the larger denominations.--Niels Ø 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet Union used 3 for a denomination? That's precisely the sort of fascinating and unexpected tidbit I enjoy learning. Please add it to the article at your convenience. We still need to draft some guidelines for the more common currency numbers, though. PrimeFan 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I won't; I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable. However, I think I remember from a stay in Kiev in October 1989 that 3 kopec coins were worth more than 3 kopec on the free market as they were relatively rare, and as they were the only coins accepted by pay-phones.--Niels Ø 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The article on 100 mentions that the American $100 bill has Benjamin Franklin on it. This is a fact that is so ingrained in popular culture that "Franklins" has become slang for the denomination. On the other hand, the fact that the British 5 pound note has Queen Elizabeth seems to me to be non-notable. Doesn't all UK currency have Her Majesty on it? Anton Mravcek 23:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too, but I will have to skim the articles on British currency. As for American currency, the US$100 bill is clearly associated with Benjamin Franklin in popular culture, probably because of hip-hop lyrics. But if you went "Jaywalking," you might be disappointed to find that few Americans know who's on the $20 bill. And don't even ask about the $2 bill. PrimeFan 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Playing card numbers

Along time ago I remember learning that Jacks are worth 11, Queens 12, Kings 13 and Aces iether 1 or 14. Is this a general thing or does it apply only to a particular game? Numerao 22:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's general (maybe Ace = 14 less so than the others), though I'd say it's only real common in mathematically-influenced games. A more frequent valuation of these cards is Jack = Queen = King = 10, Ace = 1 or 11. Of course, where only the ordering is relevant,

(Ace >) King > Queen > Jack > 10 > ... > 2 (> Ace)

is very standard. 4pq1injbok 23:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of (Ace >) King > Queen > Jack > 10 > ... > 2 (> Ace), but I've never heard of Ace = 14 before. In blackjack, the royal cards are all worth 10, so you can win with a 10, a Queen and an Ace (whereas with Queen = 12, you would've lost with the second card - perhaps casinos might want to change to this value system in order to pay out even less). Keep in mind though that besides blackjack, poker is the only card game I've ever played. PrimeFan 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Policy on redirects

May I suggest that for articles like 363 (number) we adapt a policy of converting these into appropriate redirects (to 300 (number) in this case). That will prevent these articles from reappearing, and thus ease the load on WP:VFD. See also discussion on 404, above. -- Egil 13:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You can suggest what you like, but some of these pages exist for other reasons. For example 313 AD has been regularly vandalised, and only the existence of 313 (number) has stopped it being worse. --Henrygb 23:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So vandals are deciding which articles we want in Wikipedia? I would surely think not. There are high numbers of portability notability that should have an article, in accordance to the project page. My suggestion is with regards to other numbers, that there is a policy of converting articles into redirects instead of deleting them. The project page currently says nothing about what to do (i.e. whether to delete or redirect). -- Egil 06:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If vandals are trying to include a snippet of information on the wrong page (a year), it is reasonable to have a page where such information is included. My problem is that at the same time you are trying to block both number pages and disambiguation pages. I don't particularly care which we have, but in my view it is bad to prevent any such pages existing. In any case 300 (number) is far too long, especially with no navigational aids. --Henrygb 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think so, then either change the policy on numbers (done here), or keep the current policy, and add navigation to the 300 page. Just adding a random 313 (number) of no other notability than being the registration plate on Donald Ducks car does not help in this repect. -- Egil 09:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There is not a policy on numbers, just a practice by some people in this project. And I am not sure it is working. Discussion of removing the contents of 313 (number) (which I watch as an anti-vandalism measure) was not flagged on that page; and you did not move the contents to 300 (number) when you redirected. 1729 (number) is clearly notable. 1984 (number) and 1984 (disambiguation) got in such a mess that they ended up redirecting to each other. My view is that you are going to have to treat each case on its merits. BTW, Donald Duck's car is not the point I want recorded, though I would not reject it either. --Henrygb 21:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. Vfd is for deletion. The content of 313 was not deleted. If a redirect is not acceptable, then perhaps it is better that the 313 is deleted instead? And 1984 (disambiguation) is a broken concept IMHO. Either a number is sufficiently notable (according to some criteria defined here) for a "number" article, or it is not. -- Egil 21:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No - you are right, you did not delete the content, you simply turned it into a redirect to an article where much of the content was not included at all (and the rest was hard to find). 1984 (disambiguation) points to at least eight articles called "1984 (...)". I don't care whether these are listed on a number page or a disambiguation page, but these sorts of things need to be listed somewhere. --Henrygb 09:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Egil, why did you go ahead with a redirect on 311 (number) without keeping the content to be put in the 300 article or consulting anyone? The 300 article still says that 311 "has its own article". As far as the article goes, it seems particularly notable, having a band named after it, and being antipalindromic. Number articles that already exist shouldn't be removed if they aren't complete stubs, and adding all of the information in the 311 article to 300 would make it at least a page longer. I don't want to start an edit war, but maybe you should wait before implementing policy that is still being debated. Scythe33 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

9814072356?

I noticed this page sitting on the uncategorized pages listing. It contains one line of information: "9814072356 is 99066 squared, and is the largest square number using the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0 exactly once." Does this make the number notable enough to merit its own page according to the project definition, or should it be folded into another page, such as square numbers? Baryonyx 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning somewhere, but by itself it doesn't make 9814072356 worth its own page. (If several interesting things could be said about this number, or if it had one extremely remarkable property (odd perfect number, for example) it would merit its own page). But as it stands now, it could merit deletion. PrimeFan 18:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Negative zero

A very interesting new article is -0. What would be a good place to put it in List of numbers? PrimeFan 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious place. Perhaps we should start a new section for numbers peculiar to computer representations, in which NaN and representations of infinity could also go. 4pq1injbok 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

44 (number)

There are two links to negative numbers in 44 (number). If they are supposed to be there, perhaps their meaning could be made clearer. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at 42 (number), they seem to be BC years. Other articles have the same problem.--Henrygb 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice you changed -1447 to 1447 BC in 44 (number), and similarly for the other negatives. But since there was no year zero I'd expect -1447 to actually be 1448 BC. 4pq1injbok 05:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are confident about it, change it (and similarly on 43 (number). The NASA page does not seem to make it clear. --Henrygb 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I will change 43 and 44. However, most of the numbers pages up to 85 have these negative years, and this should be resolved for sure before (and if) we change them all over to BC. Also, the few numbers that use BC now should be checked against NASA's page. 4pq1injbok 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Puh-lease" primes

I saw in the edit history for 89 Robert Happleberg's edit referring to "puh-lease" primes. Now I know I'm not the only one who is annoyed by all those substubs the full text of which goes something like this:

A type-X prime is a type-X number that is a prime number. The first few type-X primes are 2, 3, ...

So the article on 89, instead of having a link to a wonderfully written article on Fibonacci numbers, had a link to a lame substub on Fibonacci primes. Anton Mravcek 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the Fibonacci primes. Fibonacci numbers have been well researched and so have the Fibonacci primes. The same goes for Bell primes. However, I would have to agree with you on most others, like Markov primes, centered decagonal primes, etc. PrimeFan 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

To comma or not to comma

A rookie user moved 10000 (number) to 10,000 (number) yesterday, and a more experienced user reverted the change.

I thought this was an issue that had been resolved during the great numbers deletion debate, but on account of my age, I can't remember where exactly that discussion was at.

And in any case, I think it would be good to at least re-examine this issue and put our concensus in the project page, even if we decide to uphold the old decision. PrimeFan 15:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think using commas in numbers is a good idea. For one, then we would need to put commas in all the number articles having over three digits, see list of mathematical topics (0-9) for how many they are. Second, putting commas is American-centric. In Europe I think you would need to write 10.000 (number) instead of 10,000 (number). I suggest you also invite more people from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to comment on this issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

After five or six zeroes, people can't tell how many zeroes there are. That's the only argument I can think of in favor of commas.

The problem with commas is, like Oleg Alexandrov said, that they're American-centric. It's the same problem with using words. We might agree on "Ten thousand" for 10^4, but our English-speaking Indian friends might prefer "One crore." And the problem with just the digits is that it causes problems for the year (i.e., does "1729" refer to "1729 A.D." or to the taxicab number?)

So I think the digits with the parenthetical "(number)" is the best compromise. Anton Mravcek 19:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement. I've added a paragraph on this to the section "Article Naming and Number Nomenclature." PrimeFan 15:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Should proposed names get its own article?

At Talk:List of numbers, User:Georgia guy brought up the issue of whether or not the "Proposed systematic names" section of the List of numbers should be split off into its own article. I haven't yet formulated my own opinion on this, but I did tell Georgia guy I would bring it up here. PrimeFan 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would advocate such a move only because List of numbers is already quite long. But I want to think this over a little more before committing to an opinion. Anton Mravcek 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Titles from another encyclopaedia

• A001622 (AfD discussion)

Now is your chance to answer the question: Should Wikipedia have redirects for OEIS titles? ☺ Uncle G 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)