Talk:Arabic numerals

Our numerals (012345679) are clearly he ones created in the Western part of the old Arab speaking World. I.e. West Arabic numerals.
These derive from early East Arabic numerals, which come from Indian numerals, which come from Brahmi, which appear to come from Shang Dynasty numerals. (all being decimal and positional)
Exactly in the same way, that the letters we use, are essentially the same as those used to write Latin, by the Romans ...which come from an/some old Greek alphabet, which come from the old Phoenician abjad, which comes from the proto-Siniatic abjad (with, arguable, a Proto-Canaanite abjad, inbetween), which derive from Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

So why should the numerals be called Indian or Hindu-Arabic, but no one would ever dreeeeam of saying that our letters are anything other than Latin?
There is no possible, conceivable, reason for this double standard, outside of anti-Arab racism.
None.
It is simply impossible, to be able to imagine one, much less make a reasonable case for its plausibility. 185.113.98.190 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

To clarify further: When I say that this is cannot possibly be anything other than anti-Arab racism, that cannot possibly be construed as an assumption of bad faith. It is a clear and water-tight conclusion. This goes well beyond "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", and into "Beyond Any Possible Doubt". The evidence is clear and indisputable.--185.113.98.190 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Please keep weird ideological polemic off Wikipedia. Unfortunately this and related articles has been heavily edited by Arab-nationalist ideologues over many years to promote a political agenda in substantial violation of Wikipedia policy, and the current quite miserable state of this article is largely due to their rejection of any improvement, which has been too time consuming to fix for Wikipedians attempting good faith improvements (they do revert wars followed by endless poorly motivated rules lawyering and successfully chase away most productive contributors). It's a worthwhile project someday, as with more effort and eyeballs gathered from the broader community it seems fixable.

Your point of view does not align with common conventional language used by historians of mathematics or a wide range of lay authors when writing in English for at least the past century, including Arabs and experts on Arabic mathematics. Indeed the name historically (and currently?) used for this number system in Arabic was "Indian numbers", and early authors writing in Arabic (e.g. al-Kindi, al-Khwarizmi) quite consciously talk about building off previous work imported from India. Early European authors (e.g. Fibonacci) also consistently credited the concept to India. The name "Arabic numerals" is a relatively recent name. There's probably a paper somewhere tracing its origin and spread.

The specific forms in use today changed quite significantly in Europe, so it would be plausible to switch to a name like "European numerals" (Unicode calls these "ASCII digits" and suggests as synonyms "Western digits", "Latin digits", or "European digits"). Chrisomalis (2020), one of the best modern scholars of comparative numeration, uses the name "Western numerals", for neutrality and clarity. But the name "Hindu–Arabic numerals", whatever someone's opinion about it, is the typical name applied by modern scholars, which is what Wikipedia should conform to per WP:COMMONNAME, with the most common alternatives mentioned.

Suggesting that the everyone in the broad community of mathematical historians makes their decisions about nomenclature conventions based on anti-Arab racism is ridiculous and unsupportable. –jacobolus (t) 07:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

"Please keep weird ideological polemic off Wikipedia."

It is referring to the numerals as Indian or Hindu-Arabic, which is weird ideological polemics, and something that is completely against all of Wikipedias supposed principles. (it's rules, guidelines, policies...)

"Unfortunately this and related articles has been heavily edited by Arab-nationalist ideologues over many years"

I have zero connection to, or sympathy towards, Arabs in particular. On the contrary, I have reason to be biased against them.

"in substantial violation of Wikipedia policy, and the current quite miserable state of this article is largely due to their rejection of any improvement, which has been too time consuming to fix for Wikipedians attempting good faith improvements (they do revert wars followed by endless poorly motivated rules lawyering and successfully chase away most productive contributors)."

Your description sounds perfectly accurate ...if you switch the which side the descriptions are of.

"Your point of view does not align with/.../"

Why do you refuse to address my arguments?

How does it make sense to call the numerals Hindu-Arabic, but refer to our letters as Latin, rather than Egypto-Latin? That is an indisputable double standard, for which no possible non-racist justification can be found or imagined

...and you certainly haven't even tried to provide one!

"Early European authors (e.g. Fibonacci) also consistently credited the concept to India."

You can argue that the concept is Indian (seems to originate in Shang Dynasty China, actually, about a millennia prior to Indian use, as mentioned in this article), but this isn't about the concept, but about the numerals!

The concept is covered in Hindu–Arabic numeral system, which isn't about any particular numerals, but purely about the system. The system could be called Indian ...or probably more accurate to call it Shang? ("Chinese" would be misleading, as well as less accurate)

The numerals that the Arabs used, were clearly not the same numerals as they originally found in Indian works. In much the same way, that the letters the Romans used, where not the same as those of the Greeks (a different Greek alphabet, than the modern one, more similar to Latin letters ...but still distinctly different), from whom they got them ...which weren't the same as those the Phoneticians used etc.

"is a relatively recent name"

And this is relevant, how exactly?

"The specific forms in use today changed quite significantly in Europe"

Not particularly significantly. A bit yes, but... Also, how is that not equally, if not more, true of our Latin letters?

"Unicode calls these "ASCII digits""

That is not a name for the numerals, but for the characters, in the context of where and how they are encoded.

"one of the best modern scholars of comparative numeration, uses the name "Western numerals", for neutrality and clarity."

That, unlike "Indian" or "Hindu Arabic", does makes sense, and is perfectly acceptable. An encyclopedic article would, however, need to further clarify, that they are West Arabic numerals, even though having "Western numerals" as a title, would be perfectly fine.

"which is what Wikipedia should conform to per WP:COMMONNAME, with the most common alternatives mentioned."

WP:TITLE makes clear that one of the five criteria to consider, is accuracy ...and Wikipedia is also supposed to be neutral, which neither "Indian" nor "Hindu-Arabic" is, in any way. West Arabic, however, is perfectly neutral, as that is what the numerals are: The numerals from the Western part of the Arabic world. They are not Hindu or Indian numerals. Those are very different. They are not Arabic numerals, as that would be the numerals used by Arabs today. (i.e. East Arabic numerals) They are West Arabic. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I have note that there has been no argument offered, for why it would be justifiable to refer to these numerals (not the system, but these specific numerals), as Hindu/Indian or Hindu-Arabic, or how it isn't a double standards to use that name for the numerals, but say that these letters are Latin. (rather than Egyptian or Egypto-Latin)

...which strengthens the case, for why there is only one possible reason, behind it: After all, if there is a different reason, why can't/won't anyone even attempt to state it? 185.113.97.24 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The name "Latin alphabet" is used as an umbrella term (vs. "English alphabet", "French alphabet", "Vietnamese alphabet", "Azerbaijani alphabet", and so on) because these various alphabets all came from a common source in the writing used by the Roman empire, which was politically and socially powerful for many centuries over a vast area. The Latin alphabet descends ultimately from the Phoenician alphabet (or perhaps Proto-Sinaitic script), which has various other descendants such as Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, Devanagari, etc. alphabets. When we want to talk about the structural feature of representing vowel and consonant sounds by symbols, we call these "Phonetic alphabets", crediting the Phoenicians (most references to "Arabic numerals" or "Hindu–Arabic numerals" are of this type, discussing the structural features of the number system, rather than the particulars of one or another set of glyph shapes). When the focus is on a specific language, we often use a more specific name such as "English alphabet". When the goal is to identify a particular common branch of alphabets descending from the Roman one, we use the name "Latin alphabet". The nomenclature is historically dependent and not necessarily perfectly consistent or neutral, but it works well enough to communicate. Use of any of these names has nothing to do with pro- or anti-Roman racism. –jacobolus (t) 20:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You cannot compare between ONE thing!

In a comparison, you have to look at all the things being compared. Looking at just one, is completely meaningless.

You talk about Latin letters, but make no mention to how the issue perfectly mirrors the numerals!

I'll deal with the letters first:

No, Latin alphabet isn't an umbrella term, for those alphabets. Latin letters/script, refers to the letters, that are the same, in all those alphabets. "Latin alphabet" should only be used for the Roman alphabet, rather than the letters, overall. (though that is a commonly made mistake)

Though I suppose "Latin script", however, would work, either way.

"which was politically and socially powerful for many centuries over a vast area."

That is not the reason, why they are called Latin. They are called Latin, or Roman, because they were invented by the Romans!

The letters we use, are the same ones that the Romans used!

"The Latin alphabet descends ultimately from the Phoenician alphabet (or perhaps Proto-Sinaitic script)"

No. Latin comes from Greek, which comes from Phoenician, which (as is firmly confirmed and well documented) comes from Proto-Sinaitic script, which, (again very firmly confirmed and well documented) comes from Egyptian hieroglyphs. (unlike hieratic and its descendent, demotic, which descended directly from Egyptian hieroglyphs, in Egypt and through Egyptian speakers, without connection to Proto-Sinaitic)

"When we want to talk about the structural feature of representing vowel and consonant sounds by symbols, we call these "Phonetic alphabets", crediting the Phoenicians."

No, no one does that, and that would be wrong.

First of all, they are not called "phonetic". They are only "phonetic", in a wider sense, in that they are symbols that represent sounds ...in which sense ALL alphabets, abjads, syllabaries, semi-syllabaries, and abugidas, are "phonetic". For a genuine phonetic alphabet, there is the IPA and similar scripts.

Furthermore, they originate from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Not Phoenician script. Even if you only count the simplification of them, to represent sounds, that is still not Phoenician, but Proto-Sinaitic ...and neither Proto-Sinaitic script, nor Phoenician, were alphabets, nor used symbols to represent vowels. Their scripts were abjads: scripts that represent only consonants. Much like the "phonetic" use of hieroglyphs, hieratic, and demotic. It was the Greeks, who adapted the letters, for use in representing vowels, in addition to consonants.

"When the goal is to identify a particular common branch of alphabets descending from the Roman one, we use the name "Latin alphabet"."

...or, FAR more commonly, to identify the letters, irrespective of language!

They cannot always be tied to a language (in the sense of one being able to tell, whether a particular use of them, is in a particular language. In many cases, because they are used, without connection to any particular language), and even when they are, they are the same exact letters, regardless of language.

"The nomenclature is historically dependent and not necessarily perfectly consistent or neutral, but it works well enough to communicate."

That is clearly false. It is an accurate nomenclature, as they are the letters that the Romans invented (though the use of "Latin", rather than "Roman", is a bit inaccurate and weird, but that's beside the point) ...and it is perfectly consistent and neutral. (aside from how people often, wrongly, talk about "Latin alphabet", when they mean "Latin letters"/"Latin script")

Contrast this with Western numerals:

The numerals we use, are the ones that were invented and used, in the Western part of the Arabic Empire (or empires. It wasn't all unified, all the time), which come from the early numerals, used in the East part, which come from the numerals used in India, which come from earlier Indian numerals. (i.e. Brahmi) This exactly mirrors Latin letters:

Letters: Latin < Greek < Phoenician < Proto-Sinaitic < hieroglyphs

Numerals: West Arabic < East Arabic < Indian < Brahmi

With the exact same sort of differences between the steps, with both letters and numerals. And any argument that the numerals used in West Arabia, are different to how they look today (as they look slightly different), is FAR more true, of our modern representations of Latin letters, compared to how the Romans wrote them.

...and yet, whilst the letters are called Latin, the numerals are called Hindu-Arabic.

I will not respond to any further statements about just the letters, or just the numerals, as opposed to comparing the two issues, as that would just be a distraction from the issue at hand ...unless it's about details that are directly connected, to comparing them.

You have yet to actually address the issue! 185.113.97.24 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"Use of any of these names has nothing to do with pro- or anti-Roman racism."

...

As you know, perfectly well, I have never suggested anything of the sort. I am saying that there is no possible reason for, accurately, calling these letters Roman/Latin, but not do the same with our numerals, by calling them West Arabic, but instead insisting on calling them Hindu-Arabic!

There is an argument for calling them "Western numerals", for the sake of clarity, though I think that is unwise, as it obscures what they are. Still, that is a reasonable argument, and one that is clearly about clarity, and not racism ...but to insist on putting "Hindu-" in there, makes no sense, and is inconsistent with how we don't refer to these letters, as "Egypto-Roman".

That there exists no possible justification, that one could possible imagine, for this clear and obvious double standard.

Other than racism.

But then, I've already said this, MULTIPLE TIMES!

This will be the last time. If you still refuse to address this, I will have to conclude that you are playing dumb. That you are being disingenuous. Trolling. Arguing in undeniable bad faith. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You're starting to get a bit rude, please take it easy. Remember, everyone here is a volunteer, and a person. Cf. Wikipedia:Civility. –jacobolus (t) 15:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So rather than contest the abundant arguments and evidence, that you are the uncivil one, acting in bad faith and with malice (presented in about as civil a way as can possibly be expected. Particularly from someone who has been the target of such bad faith and malice), you instead resort to a baseless Ad Hominem smear (in breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH and WP:PA) ...which only serves to further prove my point. And further condemn you. 185.113.99.207 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is going to bother responding if all you do is call them names and make angry demands. Maybe try again sometime in a few days without the vitriol and I'll give your second try a read. –jacobolus (t) 21:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

... I clearly made a mistake, in making the above reply. I had, after all, said "This will be the last time.". I should have done as I intended, and followed WP:DENY. I'm a bit ashamed, of having gone against what I said I'd do. I will make sure, that I make no further response. 185.113.99.207 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this is good advice for everyone; this discussion may have run its course. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 21:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's been nearly a fortnight, so... That appears to confirm it. 185.113.97.151 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is named "Arabic numerals", but deals exclusively with West Arabic numerals. Not Arabic numerals, as a whole: I.e. West and East Arabic numerals. So 0123456789 and ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩. (and let's not forget the Persian and Urdu variations, of East Arabic numerals) As such, the name is deeply inaccurate, misleading, and misinforming. 185.113.98.190 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be better to merge this article with Hindu–Arabic numeral system and then cover the historical evolution and variations around the world in a single place, based on reliable sources, but that's a big ugly political fight, and good luck getting past the Arab nationalists who got us into the current state. –jacobolus (t) 07:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to rename this page "Western Arabic numerals" and make "Arabic numerals" a redirect to Hindu-Arabic numeral system. That would correspond to what people mean by "Arabic numerals" in plain English. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Something like that would be a definite improvement. It still leaves the problem that "Western Arabic" most plausibly refers to the version from 10th century North Africa and Spain (or forms still used in some parts of North Africa), rather than the "modern" forms used internationally. –jacobolus (t) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The modern forms are the numerals that were used in North Africa and Spain! They may have changed a bit, but no more than our letters have changed, from those the Romans used. Modern Latin letters are FAAAAAAAR more different to what the Romans used, than our modern numerals are different to what was used in e.g. Andalusia. An Andalusian would instantly recognize our modern forms of the numerals, without any trouble. A Roman, looking at our letters, on the other hand, would be very confused. S/he wouldn't have much trouble with our capital letters (though they have changed a bit), but lowercase... 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

You're not even trying to make yourself coherent. No one wants to engage in your impressionistic poetry games, the points of which have been gone over thousands of times before. This is especially the case after your opening statements were to proclaim that everyone who disagrees with you must be a strident, unrepentant racist against Arabs. Stop wasting others' time with this. Remsense ‥ 论 22:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That comment is no more than an obvious smear and personal attack, that assumes bad faith... 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Because you're arguing in bad faith and no one wants to deal with it. Read the previously stated arguments on this page until they click. Remsense ‥ 论 22:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There are several replies, from other people...

"Read the previously stated arguments on this page until they click."

Read my statements until they click. Actually read.

You are the only one here, obviously displaying (very!) bad faith. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

We go by by what the reliable sources say. It's not our job to redefine the meaning of "Arabic numerals" or try to guess what "people think". M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them "West Arabic", so... 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been covered endlessly before, but in modern usage the words "Arabic Numerals" mean the digits used in Europe/America, and explicitly do not include Eastern Arabic Digits or any of the digit symbols used in India or elsewhere. This has become much more relevant as computers have added the capability of showing non-Arabic Numerals, before that it is plausible that whether "Arabic Numerals" includes other digits was irrelevant as those other digits could not be typed. An explanation for the misleading name is useful and should be in this article, but you can't change it, WP policy is to use the common name. Spitzak (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

A confusing and misleading name, can be changed, and it is WP policy, to avoid inaccurate titles. As someone what ١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩٠ are, and they'll say they're Arabic numerals. So how do you distinguish them from 0123456789? 185.113.97.24 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's been "covered endlessly before" because a parade of many editors think the current state is unacceptably bad and come try to fix it, but about 2–3 editors who think they own the project prevent any change. The fighting is acrimonious enough that each new group of editors who wants some improvement gives up and goes away, and the mediocre status quo remains. A few months later the next person comes along with the same (often quite reasonable and policy supported) complaint. Rinse and repeat. –jacobolus (t) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm the new person over my skiis here, would you mind articulating your own position briefly? Remsense ‥ 论 23:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

My basic position is that when most people use the term "Arabic numerals", including when wikilinks point to the title Arabic numerals, what they actually care about is what Wikipedia calls the Hindu–Arabic numeral system (i.e. a positional base-ten number system in which each symbol's meaning is dependent on its position unlike e.g. earlier Egyptian numerals, Attic numerals, or alphabetic Greek numerals, which first developed sometime in India and then was adopted and extended in the Islamic world, and later further extended, so that it now includes features like decimal fractions, etc.), rather than the specific set of what we might call "Western digits", i.e. the specific modern international glyph symbols 0123456789. I assessed this by doing a lot of searching and skimming around in books, scholarly papers, and web searches for keywords like "Arabic numerals" or "Hindu–Arabic numerals" of which only a tiny fraction are about the topic of this article.

It's in my opinion a Wikipedia failure that this artificially narrowly scoped and fairly mediocre (poorly sourced, incomplete, non-neutral, not reflective of scholarly consensus) article Arabic numerals gets ~2.5x the traffic of the more broadly scoped (but still fairly mediocre) article Hindu–Arabic numeral system, when it seems fairly obvious to me that most readers would be better served by arriving at the latter article first and then finding their way to the former one only if they are really looking for more specific information about the evolution of glyph shapes from the 11th century onward rather than basic information about the number system (e.g. its structure, practical use, applications, history, and comparison with other number systems).

In my opinion we should address this by making the title Arabic numerals redirect to the basic article about the numeral system (which would probably best be hosted at a title like Hindu–Arabic numerals, though the existing title Hindu–Arabic numeral system is okay), and move a dedicated article about the set of digit glyphs to a more explicitly topical title such as Western Arabic digits, Western digits, or European digits (and in the process also split Ghubar digits as a separate article, since the topic of digits historically and presently used in North Africa is inevitably smothered by the European focus of this current article). –jacobolus (t) 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

So when he says it, you listen and agree... This further double standard, proves even more, that you're a malicious troll. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

A great argument! I'd argue that the article about the system needs to be named "...numeral system", and not "...numerals", as it isn't about the numerals, but the system. Also, it'd be better to call it Indian, than Hindu–Arabic, as the Arabs didn't really change the system. Although... why call it Indian? It would seem that the Indians got it from Shang Dynasty China ...but I suppose you could argue that the sources don't reflect that. At least not yet.

"a dedicated article about the set of digit glyphs to a more explicitly topical title such as Western Arabic digits, Western digits, or European digits"

"European digits" seems quite weird. West Arabic numerals is the most accurate and informative ...though you could argue (and I wouldn't really disagree), that it's better to have "Western numerals" as the title, and explaining, in the article, that they are West Arabic numerals, and how they are, indeed, the numerals used in the old Western Arabic World. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

All of the articles Babylonian cuneiform numerals, Egyptian numerals, Aegean numerals, Attic numerals, Greek numerals, Roman numerals, Chuvash numerals, Cistercian numerals, Cyrillic numerals, Dzongkha numerals, Glagolitic numerals, Hindustani numerals, Maya numerals, Muisca numerals, Suzhou numerals are about "systems" in this sense. I think for consistency and concision Hindu–Arabic numerals should follow the same pattern, but it's a relatively minor point. The important point is that Arabic numerals and related titles should redirect to that article.

"It would seem that the Indians got it from Shang Dynasty China" – as you have stated it this claim is entirely false, the two are unrelated with no historical or graphical evidence linking them; there is fringe speculation by one or two scholars of Chinese counting rods (who have done good work on that subject per se, but are speculating far outside their area of expertise) that the adoption of a positional system in India was inspired by Chinese counting rods, but it's not really a very plausible and not backed by very persuasive evidence or reasoning; we've had some discussion of this in the past, but it's largely off topic here (though I agree related articles must be fixed to make any claims about this topic very precise, neutral, and carefully supported by reliable sources, as they currently violate Wikipedia policy).

–jacobolus (t) 16:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"All of the /.../ are about "systems" in this sense."

They are about the numerals and the underlying system. As the numerals are meaningless, without the system they are used in. This is not true, for numerals that use the Indian system, due to how the system is already the default, of anyone visiting Wikipedia.

"with no historical or graphical evidence linking them"

Well, maybe no evidence of a direct link, or intermediates, but looking at the image here, comparing Shang and Brahmi numerals (with the former, clearly not just involving rods) they undeniably have notable similarities, even beyond the numerals for 1-3, which are just that number of lines. But sure, I'll accept that there is no firm evidence, making it no more than a hypothesis. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

They are about the numerals and the underlying system – indeed, an article called something like Hindu–Arabic numerals should discuss both of those topics.

The image here is more or less original research, not well supported by reliable sources (based on someone confusing different speculation about one thing with a picture they found about something else), and the "notable similarities" are, with all due respect, nonsense. However, this is all off topic here. –jacobolus (t) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

An article about the system, should be titled "...system". Not numerals. The other articles you cite, are all about the numerals. (and system) The article "Hindu–Arabic numeral system", is about the system. The numerals are also mentioned listed, but the article isn't about them, and doesn't discuss them, more than a very brief mention.

As for the whole Shang numerals bit: Okay, sure. I accept that. (I still suspect it might have been an influence, but... that's speculation) 185.113.97.24 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

An article titled "Arabic numerals" or "Hindu–Arabic numerals" or "Indo–Arabic numerals" or similar should be about the primary topic that readers expect to find when they come to that title, which we can make guesses about by examining (a) places in written corpora (books, scholarly papers, web pages), where phrases "Arabic numerals" etc. appear, (b) inbound wikilinks and web links pointed at our title Arabic numerals, and figuring out what authors mean in context where those are used. An overwhelming majority of uses of the phrase "Arabic numerals" in practice are discussing the general number system and its uses, not the particulars of the glyph symbols. I would find it an acceptable compromise to move this article to Arabic numerals (glyph symbols) or similar, with Arabic numerals redirected to Hindu–Arabic numeral system. –jacobolus (t) 19:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"An article titled "Arabic numerals" or "Hindu–Arabic numerals" or "Indo–Arabic numerals" or similar should be about the primary topic that readers expect to find when they come to that title"

Indeed, we both agree that all of those should point to an article about the system. One that I'd argue, should be named "Indian numeral system".

"Indo-Arabic", or "Hindu-Arabic", suggests that they made changes or modifications to the system. They didn't. What they used, and we use today, is no different to what was used with Brahmi numerals.

Just as calling the numerals "Hindu-Arabic"/"Indian" is an unjustifiable erasure of Arabs, calling the system "Hindu-Arabic"/"Indo-Arabic" is giving Arabs undue credit and unjustifiable erasure of Indians.

However, all that is very different to an article covering the 123456790 numerals.

"I would find it an acceptable compromise to move this article to Arabic numerals (glyph symbols) or similar, with Arabic numerals redirected to Hindu–Arabic numeral system."

I agree that Arabic numerals should redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system, but this article shouldn't be named Arabic numerals (glyph symbols).

Aside from the superfluous nature of "glyph symbols" (you should use either "glyphs" or "symbols". Not both), calling them "Arabic" is still needlessly ambiguous and misleading.

This article should either be named West Arabic numerals, or Western numerals. (and I don't see why a parenthesis would be needed, for either title. I guess for the latter, you could possibly want a clarification, making it Western numerals (glyphs)?)

Neither of which, is in any way inaccurate or misleading.

And whatever complaints, that people could have about "West Arabic numerals" (and the only even faintly valid one, would be a confusion about them being ones used in the modern Arab world), they cannot possibly be made, about "Western numerals". How is that uncommon, obscure, or confusing, in any way? 185.113.97.24 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"is no different to what was used with Brahmi numerals" – this is not an accurate summary, but this discussion is a bit small to get into the details; this and related articles should do a much better job explaining the changes over time, backed by reliable academic sources, than they currently do.

I think "Western numerals" or "Western digits" would be fine as a name, though I think you'll find quite a lot of opposition from the editors who have dominated this page for the past few years. –jacobolus (t) 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying the system did get some modifications? Interesting. I suppose, depending on those modifications, it might justify calling it Hindu-Arabic/Indo-Arabic, though I doubt it. Either way, it would seem we are in agreement ...with no one objecting. That would indicate that there is consensus. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to express my appreciation, for having at least one person, who is willing to have a genuine, good faith, and honest discussion. (Well, in this section. You abandoned the above one, and haven't addressed the issues, there) Something I have learned not to expect on Wikipedia. (especially from admins)

...and also belatedly thank you, for correcting me on the Shang issue, which I am ashamed to see, that I forgot to do. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Given many previous experiences with Wikipedia, I am massively unsurprised. I used to be an active editor, with an account (the account is still there, I've just left it), but... nowadays I generally refrain from editing, and even if I do an edit, I usually (not this time, obviously) have enough sense, not to bother following up on it. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• "West Arabic numerals" is not a common name, and is not preferred by reliable sources. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  That it isn't common, among regular people, I don't deny. But then, we all agree that some of what is common among regular people, shouldn't be reflected in articles/titles, here, due to being false and misleading. As is reflected, in countless Wikipedia articles. The notion that it isn't common among academics, or reliable sources, however...

  You're saying that they prefer to say "Arabic numerals"? ...which suggests they're talking about ١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩٠? Academics like to be clear, distinct, unambiguous, and avoid terms that would invite misinterpretation.

  Also, Wikipedia is supposed to strive for the same, according to its rules, guidelines, and policies. To not be misleading, ambiguous, or confusing. 185.113.97.24 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly before. The subject MUST be called "Arabic numerals" (though an argument could be made for "western Arabic numerals" as the other digits used in Arabia are called "eastern Arabic numerals").

Calling them "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is TWICE as "wrong" as calling them "Arabic numerals" so just don't go there, there is totally different forms of digits used in India. In popular use and references, these symbols are probably called "numbers" or "digits" 90% of the time, but that is too general of a term. By far the next most-used term is "Arabic numerals". There is a problem that quite a number of people think "Arabic numerals" means "not Roman numerals" but we can't do anything about that (and please stop trying to change this page into discussing "not Roman Numerals"!!!!), there are plenty of documented uses (such as papers saying "ASCII contains a full set of Arabic numerals") which clearly indicate there is use of this term to mean this specific set of digits.

The numeric system is called "decimal" in the vast majority of cases, and it includes inventions (powers of 10 less than 0) from Arabia. Spitzak (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no argument that can be made, for calling the numerals "Arabic" (which would imply the numerals used in Arabic: ١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩٠), rather than "West Arabic".(not "Western Arabic". That's not a thing)

"Calling them "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is TWICE as "wrong" as calling them "Arabic numerals" so just don't go there"

👍

"There is a problem that quite a number of people think "Arabic numerals" means "not Roman numerals""

What does that even mean?

"The numeric system is called "decimal" in the vast majority of cases, and it includes inventions (powers of 10 less than 0) from Arabia."

No. There are countless different decimal systems ...and Europe had a decimal system (or several), long before getting these numerals from the Arab world. Not only Roman numerals ("IV" for 4, etc), but also before those, when people just spelled out the words for the numbers, they were still using a decimal system. Even before writing, they still used a decimal system. (not to mention the many non-European decimal systems) 185.113.97.24 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What I meant by "not Roman numerals": There are LOTS of people who believe exactly two numeral+symbol systems were ever used in the history of human civilization. One is Roman Numerals, the other is Decimal written using Arabic Numerals. Therefore they assume an article titled "Arabic Numerals" is an article about "not Roman numerals" and this leads to all this Hindu-Arabic/Decimal arguments. It is unfortunate that the name "Arabic Numerals" is by far the most used for the concept of the "most common set of symbols used in the world to write numbers", but we can't change it. Teaching people that there are more than 2 types of numbers, including the actual development in India of base-10 (which DID NOT USE ARABIC NUMERALS!!!!!!!) is IMHO a good thing. Spitzak (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

"There are LOTS of people who believe exactly two numeral+symbol systems were ever used in the history of human civilization" – This is an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence for it? –jacobolus (t) 19:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Every single person who says this article should be renamed to "Hindu-Arabic Numeral System". Spitzak (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That's beyond false. You're (wrongly) speculating about people's motives in an entirely unsupportable way. The claim of yours that I quoted is basically nonsense; I would be surprised if any non-negligible number of people believed what you claim, let alone "LOTS" of people. –jacobolus (t) 01:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be renamed to 'Hindu-Arabic Numeral System'. TJauteur (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are digits; not numerals (Arabic or otherwise). Well, a single digit is also a numeral, but that's a special case. The important aspects are that a digit is one of the unique symbols (0-9) whereas a numeral is the representation of a number using digits. numeral is a broader concept than digit. An Arabic numeral is a numeral written using the digits of the Arabic numeral system. (Maybe it's called Hundi-Arabic today; doesn't affect my point). Therefore, "The ten Arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) are the most commonly used symbols for writing numbers" is wrong. There are an infinite number of Arabic numerals. There are (just) 10 digits.

Further, the claim that Arabic numerals are the most commonly used symbols for writing numbers is not only illogical (per above) but if we assume we're talking about the digits instead, dubious. If these digits are the most commonly used, we need a citation.

So, what is this article about? Is it about the digits of the Arabic numeral system (Digit (Arabic))? Or Arabic numerals (Numeral (Arabic))? Or the Arabic numeral system (Numeral system (Arabic))? ... Apparently Hindu–Arabic numeral system covers the system. So, IMO this article should focus on and be titled for: digit. But the content seems to be about the system. It highly overlaps Hindu–Arabic numeral system.

After reading Hindu–Arabic numeral system, I see that there is not just one set of digits/symbols! Interesting. It seems the system spans languages and time such that there are multiple symbol sets for the same system. First conclusion: this further calls into question the claim about the Arabic digits being the most commonly used (if that is in fact the claim). Second, in light of the lengthy discussion in other talk topics (TL;DR) I think it makes sense that this page about digits is called Arabic; not Hindu-Arabic; since other symbols are more accurately, appropriately (cultural-sensitively) classified as Hindu. Third, seems this article (about digits) could be very short if not eliminated. Hindu–Arabic numeral system covers the complicated stuff and already lists the ten glyphs 0-9. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stevebroshar This title should redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and the article about number glyphs should be moved to a less common and more explicitly named target (because by far, most of the inbound wikilinks to the title Arabic numerals are references to the number system rather than the specific symbols); however, a few Wikipedia editors have the apparent goal of promoting the name "Arabic" and suppressing the name "Hindu", presumably for political reasons, and have a lot of time to argue about it. For years even links to the article Hindu–Arabic numeral system were suppressed from this article by a few editors who persistently reverted dozens if not hundreds of attempts to add them. After some effort (the tl;dr discussions you mention) the links were finally forced to remain, but other improvements to these articles have been blocked by poorly explained reverts, and most of the folks who have attempted improvements didn't stick around to fight for them. If someone has the time and energy, it would be worth making substantial expansions and improvements to all of the related articles and pushing them through by RFC with more discussion/input from a wider editor base, since the broader community of Wikipedia editors has significant differences of opinion with the editors who have for years kept any improvements out of these articles. –jacobolus (t) 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion of a redirect (for all the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam).

a few Wikipedia editors have the apparent goal .. casting aspersions again, I see.

editors who have for years kept any improvements ANI is that way. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stevebroshar – as you can see, any discussion leads to immediate threats. –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Any discussion that starts with aspersions (by the same editor) leads to the same outcome (as expected). Anyway, I don't intend on wasting my time repeating what was said, much less entertain personal attacks. 17:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that you use aspersion as that implies a personal attack. It wasn't personal until you replied and made it clear that you think the criticisms are directed at you ;) Seems to me that you are the one making it personal; maybe taking it personally. The talk page is a place for criticism, but let's leave are egos at the door. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Their comment is clearly directed at the editors instead of the content. If you can't see that, then that's your problem. M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Now, that's a personal statement! I won't call it an attack. I've seen people use 'attack' way too loosely. ... It is often reasonable to mention authors. At the end of the day, writing is about the author. It's reasonable to talk about authors, but it is not reasonable to attack; to cast aspersion. The line between reasonable and unreasonable is wide and grey. IMO, we all should try real hard to assume the best; rather than take it personally. For instance, your comment that "that's your problem" could be seen as an attack. I could interpret that to mean: I have a problem or even that I'm stupid for not understanding something. And that would not be reasonable here. But, I remain calm as a cucumber. I take your comment to mean that you think the other author is the one being unreasonable. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are the one making it personal WP:ANI is that way. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does ANI have to with numerals or this talk topic? Stevebroshar (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah. Yikes. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

A like-minded individual. Yes, I think this article should redirect to the system page. ... and OMG I guess I stepped into something! This is interesting actually. WP is an anarchistic system. How does a contentious issue get resolved? There is no central control. Yet, there is a resolution none-the-less. Right now, it seems the save-the-arabic-numeral-system-article (SANSA) contingent is holding their own. I have run into this elsewhere. Some folks hold odd beliefs about that what a computer program is. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is about the "Arabic numerals" as described in the majority of RS (i.e., not the system). M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what RS means. Please avoid speaking in code. ... So, it's about the numerals. OK. How does the topic of this article differ from Hindu–Arabic numeral system? The numeral system seems the interesting topic IMO. It's about how to form and interpret the numerals of that system. The numerals consist of digits/symbols following the rules of the system. What else is there to say about the numerals? Could make this list of numerals but we already have list of numbers ... which by the way is the silliest WP page! ... in summary, if this is about the numerals then I think the article about the system covers that and this article can direct to that one. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

"RS" is an abbreviation of the Wikipedia jargon term, reliable sources, which is commonly linked by the shortcut WP:RS. Writing articles based on the content of "reliable sources" (in the Wikipedia sense) is part of one of Wikipedia's core policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. –jacobolus (t) 16:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I did look it up after saying I didn't know what it was. Was a head slap when I found it. One problem is you can't google a two letter acronym! ... It always bugs me when people use the policy abbreviations. It's annoying when someone uses the link, and confusing when it's not a link. Worse, people often use that stuff as a sledgehammer; instead of making a cogent argument. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been argued on and on and on. Please stop. The common name is "Arabic numerals", the term is used in almost 100% of the links to this article to mean exactly these 10 symbols and to exclude Indian, Eastern Arabic, Mayan, and other symbols. Links that mean "base 10" or "not roman numerals" should be fixed to link to Decimal or Hindu-Arabic numeral system (depending on whether fractional values are supported).

I fully agree that "digits" would be more accurate but common usage has to prevail. I also agree that "Arabic" is confusing and misleading, but the oft-suggested "Hindu" is more misleading! The fact that these symbols are used more than any others to write numbers is sky-is-blue obvious unless maybe we count possible alien civilizations, or that population estimates of various regions of the earth are off by multiple orders of magnitude. Spitzak (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that they are most commonly used in much of the world. But I don't have an objective view of the entire world. Do you? Maybe, this assertion is western-centric. I would not question that these are the most commonly used in the USA. I think it's most common in the western hemisphere. But I am not confident at all that it's most commonly used world-wide. Without objective research I think it's speculation and surely OR. What makes you think so surely it is? ... TBO I have never heard of the term "Arabic numerals" before reading it here. Is it all that common outside of WP? That WP links use the term is no conformation that it's notable! It might be WP inventing the world. ... I think the solution is to eliminate this article! Seems that the number system is the topic and that's covered in Hindu–Arabic numeral system. And that article lists the digits 0-9 as the symbols used in English. That's all we need to say about the digits. ... and sometimes people use words wrong such that common usage does not trump correctness. Just bc we often do something wrong does not make it right. Sometimes it does, but not always. Sometimes, we document the right thing so that we all know what we often do wrong. A numeral is a series of symbols. In base-10, it's a series of digits. The symbols 0-9 are not numerals (except for the special case of a single digit/symbol numeral). They are digits. They are symbols. There is not just 10 numerals. There are an infinite number of numerals. There are 10 digits/symbols. To say otherwise is to deny what these words mean. Words have meanings ... even if people often use them incorrectly or loosely. We certainly can and should note that people often use certain terms incorrectly/loosely. But we should boldly state the actual meaning up front. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term "Arabic numerals" before reading it here. seriously? M.Bitton (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You can send me any number of links. Does not mean I've heard of it. The interweb is wide and deep. I did go to school in Wisconsin. I think that makes me a good candidate for knowing whether this term is common. Or maybe it means I am completely uneducated. ;) Stevebroshar (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The Collins entry says "in British English". That I can believe! Brits say all sort of weird things. Crips! Stevebroshar (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The "Hindu Arabic Numeraal system" was invented CENTURIES earlier than these symbols, used completely different symbols, and in no way should an article about these symbols be directed towared that. Terms like "numbers" and "digits" are of course used far more often for "the 10 symbols that I think look like numbers", but this can only be determined from context (in a minority of cases the author is aware that there are other digits and that they are including them). For writers that are aware that other symbols are used (primarily font designers) the term "arabic numerals" seems to be the most common term used. That is probably unfortunate but we are going to have to live with it. Another unfortunate fact is that "Arabic numerals" is assumed by many to mean "not Roman numerals" which is why so many seem to be insulted that it is not pointing to "hindu", however there are many better and more common terms for this, such as "decimal", allowing "Arabic numerals" to be the title of an article about the symbols. Spitzak (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I know there's controversy about arabic/hindu, but that's not the point of my original comment. You are diving down a distracting rabbit hole. My point is that the description of the numerals (that are the topic of this article) is wrong since a numeral is a series of symbols. The symbols are not the numerals. The numerals are not the symbols. In fact, the numerals are formed from the symbols! ... You mention Roman numeral. Now that is a notable term! Normal people actually use that. A Roman numeral is a numeral formed based on a different, non-base-10 system (I guess invented by some Roman dude, but gods only knows whether they got it from somewhere else ... again off topic from my original comment). But just bc there's a notable thing called Roman numeral does not automatically mean there's a notable thing called Arabic numeral (or Hindu-Arabic or whatever). Stevebroshar (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

does not automatically mean there's a notable thing called Arabic numeral the fact that you haven't heard of it is obviously irrelevant to its existence. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to redirect this to whether these should be called "digits" instead of "numerals". I fully agree that "digits" would be more accurate. However we have to live with the most common term used, and that is "numerals". Spitzak (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

WRT screaming "centuries": What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? That the symbols were invented after the system is a nothing sandwich. The system is the story! The symbols are just 10 squiggles used in the system. In fact, any 10 squiggles will suffice. The squiggles are boring. And as it turns out, there is no notable term for the squiggles. Oh wait, there is: digit. Stevebroshar (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the "please stop": I am new to this article, but I venture to guess that you are experienced with it and issues with it and annoyed by the discussion of it. Thing is, that reflects on you. I am starting from a new vantage point. I would hope to be welcomed to the discussion rather than told to go away. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Per your sky-is-blue comment: That implies that anyone can verify it as easily as looking at the sky which anyone can do. but... clearly that does not apply. I cannot know what 5 billion people use for writing numbers. It's knowable via research and analysis, but not easily verified by Joe Blow. This assertion is _far_ from obvious. But, if it were obvious, so terribly obvious, then I see no value in including it in the article. If you are in fact correct, that it's obvious then it should be removed since it's boring. If it's not obvious, it needs citation. Stevebroshar (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stevebroshar in your first paragraph you actually contradict yourself. I researched the words "numeral" and "digit". it suffices to say that the Oxford dictionary defines Numeral as "a figure, symbol, or group of figures or symbols denoting a number." and a digit is a special case of numerals. When discussing the symbols representing numbers, the term "Numeral" is a valid word to describe the symbols 0-9 that are commonly used in the Western countries. Moreover it seems that this term is commonly be used by the linguists that research symbols representing language. ~2025-37757-22 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It was written until very recently....where this fact has been removed ~2025-35877-06 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Arabic numerals originated from the Arab speaking world. Developed out of Indian numerals ...which were different. Much like how the Latin alphabet originates in Rome (the historical country), developed out of the ancient Greek alphabet (different to both the Latin, as well as Modern Greek, alphabets) ...which, in turn, came from Greece, but developed out of Phoenician, Proto-Sinaitic script, and ultimately from Egyptian hieroglyphs. ~2025-35965-50 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Skitash, Sir.isaacnewton1111 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC) I noticed that you deleted the part I wrote about Al-Khwarizmi, even though it’s correct and backed by historical sources. I added that text before the section about Fibonacci to make the article more consistent and act as a historical bridge, especially since Fibonacci himself learned these numerals from Al-Khwarizmi’s famous book "Kitab al-Jam’ wa-l-tafriq bi-hisab al-Hind", and he even admitted this. I included citations for my edits and I'm not sure why they were removed. If the image was the issue, you could have just removed it and kept the text. ​It is quite a paradox to find an article titled "Arabic Numerals" where the very person responsible for adding the "Arabic" descriptor to these numerals and ensuring their global dissemination is not just forgotten, but actively removed; such a deletion represents a significant gap in historical oversight that I felt obligated to correct to maintain Wikipedia’s academic standards and integrity. ​Leaving out Al-Khwarizmi (who deserves the great credit for adopting these numerals and spreading them, as recognized by most major historians) from this article creates a historical imbalance and affects its credibility. I hope you look into this and get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir.isaacnewton1111 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Per WP:LEDE, the lede is supposed to summarize the body. I noticed Al-Khwarizmi is missing from the body text, so please add any new information there. Skitash (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash، Understood, in respect of the wikipedia guidelines, I will add Al-Khwarizmi to the history section now, after that, I will also add him to the lead, before the part where it says Europeans first learned about these digits from fibonacci, I will make sure to include reliable sources so everyone can verify the facts and the readers can go back to the original source, this will make the article more consistent and act as a proper historical bridge, thanks for the guidance Sir.isaacnewton1111 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If the symbol used for three does not look like '3' then this is not relevant information. Sideways '3' is probably ok. Spitzak (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Spitzak Sir.isaacnewton1111 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Spitzak

Honestly my friend the article itself is unbalanced and not understandable, for an article to be named "Arabic numerals" without mentioning the person because of whom they are named "Arabic", is something illogical and I challenge you to give me any reader who will understand anything from this article, because the article itself jumps from a small part of Al-Andalus to Fibonacci , at least maybe there should be a small part clarifying from where West Arabia took these numerals, because the article looks as if the numerals were suddenly born in Al andalus and after that fibonacci took them from them and that was it , I believe that allocating a small part for the person responsible for naming these numerals "Arabic" won't hurt and will make the article more balanced , I don't know if that's too much or not , you are talking about east arabia and I mentioning Al Khwarizmi because through him originally the numerals moved to west Arabia and not because he is from east arabia Sir.isaacnewton1111 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the 10 symbols that can be typed on a typewriter made in the USA. These must have an interesting history as they are certainly not the symbols used when decimal notation was developed, and are not even the symbols used in much of Arabia, they were unheard of for centuries after decimal notation was developed and used extensively, yet they became the most-used symbols in the world. Would very much love to see how these symbols evolved, where they came from, and the reasons they were introduced to Europe and why/how they won over other symbols.

Unfortunately the current title "Arabic numerals" is leading to lots of confusion and edit warring. The main problem is that there is a set of people who think the term means decimal (which is true when contrasted with "Roman numerals" and you are limited to a USA typewriter) and that the primary or only purpose of this article is to say that positional notation was not invented in Arabia. It can also be complained that these symbols are not in fact used in a significant part of Arabia; and "numerals" means the infinite set of arrangements instead of ten symbols.

My proposal is to:

• Rename this article. I propose western digits but please suggest other names.
• Make Arabic numerals be the disambiguation page.
• Edit that page to make it very clear that the term is very often used to mean "these ten symbols" rather than positional decimal notation.
• Fix links to the disambiguation page, over time:
  • "this font includes all 10 Arabic numerals" or "A zip-code in the USA is written using arabic numerals" would be changed to go to this page.
  • "License plates all over the world often use Arabic numerals" should be directed to some page that lists all the sets of 10 digits used everywhere (this does not really exist, tables I can find also include non-decimal systems).
  • Research is needed to see if "hexadecimal is usually written using Arabic numerals and Latin letters A-F" is literally true or if somebody who uses other digits for decimal also writes hex using these other digits.
  • Most of the rest of the links should go to decimal
  • If bases other than 10 are covered then I guess positional notation.
  • Hindu-Arabic numeral system can be used if non-integers and negative numbers are excluded.

Spitzak (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree a rename to something like Western digits would be a good idea, with some content split out to a different article called Ghubār numerals or the like, since these symbols are different and conflating them with the "modern" ones leaves nowhere to discuss them per se.

Beyond that, I'd like to see Hindu–Arabic numeral system moved to the simpler title Hindu–Arabic numerals, and the title Arabic numerals redirected to that page, since most inbound wikilinks and web searchers are looking for that topic rather than this one. We could then try to bring the resulting article Hindu–Arabic numerals to a GA-type standard by significantly expanding it, discussing not only the history of the number system but also its nature, the common ways arithmetic is done with it, all of its various extensions, how it relates to other number systems, etc. (While we are at it, we could move History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system to the simpler title History of Hindu–Arabic numerals, and that article should also ideally be expanded.)

The article Decimal is currently a wreck, covering two different topics, neither very well. It should be split into two articles, one of which focuses on the extension of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system to fractional values (of which a summary should sit at Hindu–Arabic numerals), and the second of which focuses on the generic topic of base ten number systems, including their history as well as what (esp. mathematical) features are unique to base ten compared to positional numbers with some other base. –jacobolus (t) 22:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration with the edit warriors, giving in to their ignorance of what is found in a basic dictionary in not a solution. I will quote what Enyavar said a while back:

This whole debate is ultimately pointless: This article is about what today's Western system is commonly called in the West, and that is "Arabic numerals", as everyone calls the letters that way, originally to distinguish frok Roman numerals. Nobody argues against the facts where the numbers were derived from, or who invented the system. But while everyone knows that the numbers were not invented in Arabia, everyone calls them Arabic. Wikipedia doesn't change established names - we're not replacing "Japan" with "Nihon" in all articles just because that would be more correct. This whole rebranding debate is a POV agenda. I don't think there are similar debates about the Latin script, which should be called "Phoenician-Greek script" by the same logic, as the Romans copycatted it in the whole cloth from the Greek. --Enyavar

M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

All of the names "Arabic numerals", "Hindu–Arabic numerals", "Indo–Arabic numerals", "Indian numerals", and various others are quite commonly used for this number system, both in specialist sources and among the general public, but the name "Hindu–Arabic numerals" is overwhelmingly preferred in the recent academic literature, especially in sources focused on the topic per se, because names like "Arabic numerals" and "Indian numerals" are easily open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Technical sources which need to use a specific name for the specific symbols 0123456789 vs. other versions used in different times and places commonly use names such as "Western digits" (or "European digits", among other similar variants) because, again, other names are ambiguous, historically misleading, and politically controversial. Moving this article which has been forced into that narrow scope would be very helpful because it would free up the title Arabic numerals to redirect to the destination that most readers expect. –jacobolus (t) 23:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Arabic numerals" is the WP:COMMONNAME (it's so common, one can find it in basic dictionaries). M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Dictionaries are a generally poor source for documentation of current usage, especially usage by experts, or about controversies or nuances. One big issue is that dictionaries typically lag behind contemporary use by decades or (very often) centuries. (This makes some sense when you realize that the goal of the dictionary is to help people read arbitrary texts, most of which were written in the past.) Once an entry is added to some dictionary, it basically coasts there, only rarely checked by a lexicographer (in much the way that mediocre Wikipedia articles manage to coast along with only rare checking). Often, dictionary entries are copied from one dictionary to another (or if we want to be generous, we might say that lexicographers "consult" other dictionaries to decide what to say). As a result, obsolete words, false etymologies, etc. can end up persisting very long and propagating very far. Moreover, the meaning of a name like "Arabic numerals" isn't really changing and dictionaries' job is not to document the frequency of use of various names in various kinds of sources. –jacobolus (t) 00:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

They are perfectly adequate for determining the WP:COMMONNAME. That's the first thing that any average reader (including children) would check. There is no such as "lagging behind" (or right or wrong) when it comes to common names: they are what they are, and in this case, the common name has been in use for centuries. If some people don't know it, here's their chance to learn something (which is what encyclopedias are for). M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

As a quick follow-up, here are some examples of expert mathematical historians who have used the name "Hindu–Arabic numerals", as well as some reference-type sources and some topical pop history books. Obviously we could extend this list to thousands of entries if we wanted. I only did a very cursory search, focusing on the most famous or topical historians of the 20th century and various others as well as a few sources aimed at a general audience.

• David Eugene Smith & Louis Charles Karpinski (1911) The Hindu–Arabic Numerals
• Florian Cajori (1919) A History of Mathematics
• Florian Cajori (1928) A History of Mathematical Notations
• Oystein Ore (1948) Number Theory and Its History
• Otto E. Neugebauer (1952) The Exact Sciences In Antiquity
• Dirk J. Struik (1954) A Concise History of Mathematics
• B. L. van der Waerden (1963) Science Awakening
• T. Alaric Millington & William Milliongton (1966) Dictionary of Mathematics
• Carl Benjamin Boyer (1968 and later editions in 1991, 2011) A History of Mathematics
• Karl Menninger (1969) Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers
• NCTM (1971) Historical Topics in Algebra
• Ahmad Salīm Saʿīdān [ar] (1978) The Arithmetic of Al-Uqlīdisī
• NCTM (1989) Historical Topics for the Mathematics Classroom
• Alfred W. Crosby (1997) The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western society, 1250-1600
• Various authors (2003) Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences
• Paul Kunitzsch [de] (2003) "The Transmission of Hindu–Arabic Numerals Reconsidered" in The Enterprise of Science in Islam
• Charles Burnett (2010) Numerals and Arithmetic in the Middle Ages
• Jim Al-Khalili (2012) The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance

As I said, among academic sources, especially historians writing directly about the topic, the name "Hindu–Arabic numerals" vastly predominates, though sometimes scare quotes or disclaimers about nomenclature are added. –jacobolus (t) 00:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

They are dwarfed by those who use "Arabic numerals". M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you can find some examples of top mathematical historians writing books about the history of numerical notations, the history of medieval mathematics, etc. and prefer the name "Arabic numerals". I'm sure one exists somewhere, but they are in the small minority. –jacobolus (t) 00:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything, since the common name has been known for centuries. Compare the hits on Scholar (easily done) and you'll see for yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Article titles, is more nuanced and complicated than you are pretending here. Titles must meet a variety of important criteria (in summary, Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency), and are subject to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

We probably will need to make an RFC and get much wider community input to settle this particular issue though, with a more careful write up explaining the various possibilities and arguments for them. There has not been much of a clear consensus in the past, and page editing and discussion have not really followed community norms. –jacobolus (t) 01:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

pretending seriously? Whatever.

Google Scholar: 101,000 hits for "Arabic Numerals" vs a measly 3,380 hits for "Hindu–Arabic Numerals". M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

"Decimal" has 1,160,000 hits. Spitzak (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That's good for the Decimal article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Spitzak: what you did is not acceptable. If you wish to rename the article, you do it properly: start a RM or a RfC about it. I will note that "Western digits" gets 47 hits on Google Scholar. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "pretending". Your summary of the relevant policy page in your above comments is so oversimplified as to be substantially misleading, as anyone who goes to read it can plainly see. The policy page itself is nuanced and somewhat complicated, with explanations about balancing multiple relevant considerations and advice about how to settle disputes. –jacobolus (t) 02:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

We'll see about that (when you start a RM). M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with jacobolus. Western digits seems acceptable as a new name for the article dedicated to the digits specifically. Arabic numerals is too high-traffic a target to waste on a disambiguation page; it should redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system, which covers the topic that most inquiries about "Arabic numerals" are actually asking about. Incoming links to Arabic numerals can be adjusted appropriately over time just as easily if that title redirects to Hindu–Arabic numeral system as they can if it is a disambiguation page. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Arabic numerals MUST be a disambiguation page. There are many links which are not for decimal numbers and explicitly exclude non-ASCII digits. Your claiming otherwise does not change this fact. This is the reason this article has been stuck at the current name forever.

I agree that decimal and whatever vague subset is in Hindu-Arabic numeral system should be merged into a single article, which should be called decimal due to COMMON_NAME. It can mention at the top that it (or some subset) is called "Hindu-Arabic" by some scholars. Spitzak (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstand "common name". Yes apparently decimal is called "Arabic numerals" more often than anything else (other than generic terms like "numbers"). However the term "Arabic numerals" is used even more often, at least in Wikipedia, to specify a particular subset of the symbols used to write decimal. Spitzak (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say with "explicitly exclude non-ASCII digits", etc. At some point in the past I did a somewhat cursory survey of inbound links and found the great majority to be most relevant to the topic we currently have an article about at Hindu–Arabic numeral system, rather than the topic we currently have an article about here at Arabic numerals. But if you want to do a more careful and comprehensive survey of inbound wikilinks, that would be appreciated. –jacobolus (t) 00:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I did some searching and it does appear quite a few of the links are through redirects like "Western Arabic Numerals" and only the redirects need to be fixed. There are the obvious culprits in anything talking about computer character sets or how to write numeral systems other than decimal but they may not be in the majority. Spitzak (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: Following a request at WP:RM/TR I have moved this page back to Arabic numerals. Given that any move is contested this should go to a full WP:RM discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think even WP:RM isn't going to suffice. We should get a few people to each write up a proposal for how they think the several related articles should be named and organized, and then do some kind of RFC. –jacobolus (t) 01:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:RM works perfectly. That's what we use to prevent editors from circumventing the COMMONNAME policy. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jacobolus, a RM can cover multiple pages, but yes some workshopping might be good given this disupte seems to have gone on for over 20 years. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

RM is fine for me Spitzak (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Going through this entire talk page, bringing to RfC is a no-brainer, IMO. The discussions here seem to consistently run in circles like a dog after its tail.

Clearly Arabic numerals, Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and Decimal all need consideration about their content, and also need to be done so as a group. It seems likely that after a larger discussion, these would be reduced from three to two pages in some direction, but I have no idea which.

Reading through the discussions on this page only made the relationship between the three more confusing for me, as Hindu–Arabic numeral system has been suggested for merging into both of the others. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

At a glance, "Decimal" covers mostly the mathematical aspects; "Arabic numerals" covers mostly the historical aspects of the form and development of the digits used in the West today; and "Hindu-Arabic numerical system" encompasses the inter-relations of all these related systems. So on the surface, I'm okay with how these topics are distributed, but we could of course rebalance some of the content. We also have History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, which is another article that should be taken into consideration if changes in this group of articles need to be made. --Enyavar (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Arabic numerals be renamed and moved to Western digitsWestern digits. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Arabic numerals → Western digitsWestern digits – This article is about what typographers call "Arabic numerals", which is a set of exactly 10 symbols that are available on western fonts and in ASCII. These need their own article as they are used extensively by people unaware other symbols exist, and must have an interesting history as they were not the symbols used when decimal was developed and popularized. Unfortunately the same term is also used to mean decimal (or perhaps "decimal using western digits"), which has led to endless edit warring to change the text to state that decimal did not originate in Arabia and to add history that predates these symbols.

"Numerals" means "all possible arrangements of the symbols as a number", which is an infinite set that excludes use in non-numerical identifiers, so I also propose the second word be changed to "digits".

It appears that only a small number of links to this page need to be changed to fix the majority of the typography links, as most of them are through redirects anyways. "Arabic numerals" can then redirect to decimal or it can be Arabic numerals (disambiguation) (decimal itself is actually split into several articles, some with questionable PC names. Changing this is unrelated to this move request). Spitzak (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In particular it looks like changing the redirect of Western Arabic numerals will fix the majority of typography links. Spitzak (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support - The term "numerals" used in reliable sources doesn't just mean digits. (jacobolus has compiled an excellent list of sources above.) This page has been serving up wrong content for the term due to this misinterpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Arabic numerals is the undisputed WP:COMMONNAME:

1. Google Scholar: "Arabic numerals" (102,000 hits) vs "Western Arabic numerals" (194 hits) vs "Western digits" (47 hits).
2. Ngrams: no contest.

Unlike some cherry picked "sources", the above results speak for themselves. If someone thinks that they mean more than just digits, than they're welcome to expand the article (instead of trying to rename it). M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per exactly what @M.Bitton just linked. I think it is worth noting that a small set of those Google Scholar results for Arabic numerals are actually tokens of Hindu-Arabic numerals, but only about 3%. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "Arabic numerals" is likely the common name for the 0-9 digits. Unfortunately it is also a name for "decimal numbers" and it is possible the number of times it is used this way is much higher than usage of the term for the digits. Google Scholar is not indicating why the name is being used so it does not help here. Spitzak (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support, but the rationale for this should be workshopped before discussion, and taken to a broader audience. –jacobolus (t) 20:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support The intended purpose of this article is to discuss what sources like the Unicode consortium call Western digits (or sometimes European digits), not a numeral system. The Google Scholar and ngram results quoted above are beside the point, as they necessarily include things that this article is not supposed to be about. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  A book search for "Western digits" is more illuminating as to what Unicode specialists say than a GS search. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  they necessarily include things that this article is not supposed to be about which are? M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and the almost-nonexistent coverage of the proposed new name in Google Scholar provided above. The argument that much of Google Scholar's coverage of the current name concerns other topics, claimed above by SCD, is irrelevant: my point is not about whether the current name is widely used (it obviously is) but rather that the proposed name is obviously not widely used. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  What matters here is the entirety of the policy Wikipedia:Article titles, not just the section WP:COMMONNAME. "Western digits" is the best option out of all those attested that is not going to be confused with the broader topic of a numeration system. Even WP:COMMONNAME counsels us to avoid names that are ambiguous or misleading even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. The history of this page, and the dispute that has escalated all the way to ArbCom, is more than enough reason to see hazardous ambiguity here and work to avoid it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  The first difficulty is that the scope of this article has been for many years restricted from coverage of most of the topic of "Arabic numerals", fixed to the narrow scope of the discussion of the specific glyph shapes "0123456789" and their immediate predecessors in North Africa and Spain. The title Arabic numerals is very high traffic, but most readers navigating to that page are looking for broader information, which they will not find because all efforts to broaden the scope of the article have been rebuffed. The second difficulty is that "Arabic numerals" and "Hindu–Arabic numerals" are in nearly every context exact synonyms (with possibly different political implications, and each somewhat misleading for various reasons), but the Wikipedia titles Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numerals redirect to two different places, and for years (now thankfully rectified) this article was prevented from linking to or mentioning the latter name/article, based on (presumably) ethno-nationalist ideological goals of some editors closely minding this page (which has caused frequent and persistent edit warring and disputes). –jacobolus (t) 20:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  most readers navigating to that page are looking for.. prove it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to survey readers, so I can only make assumptions based on the context and content of e.g. inbound wikilinks, which in context usually imply a topic covering not only the shape of the symbols per se, but also their usage.

  To be more concrete though: readers (and Wikipedia editor–authors) might plausibly be interested in the structural difference between "Arabic numerals" (a.k.a. Hindu–Arabic numerals among other names) vs. "Roman numerals" or Abjad numerals among other systems, might be interested in how Arabic numerals are used for arithmetic or record-keeping and how that changed compared to previous practices mostly centered on the use of counting boards ("abaci"), might be interested in the knock-on effect of Arabic numerals and written arithmetic on the history of mathematics and mathematical notation, might be interested in the various physical tools used with Arabic numerals such as dust boards, chalkboards, pen and paper, etc., might be interested in how Arabic numerals are taught in schools, might be interested in what effect calculators and computers have had on people's relationship to Arabic numerals, and so on. But these types of topics have been blocked rrom coverage on this article. –jacobolus (t) 21:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to survey readers you can't, so any claim about the what the readers are looking for should be disregarded. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  As usual, you deflected the substantive point and refused to address it. –jacobolus (t) 22:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  The article is PURPOSELY limited to the "narrow scope" you mention. The intention of the move is to make it clear that it is this narrow scope.

  Linking Indian mathematicians in is misleading as they were not using these digits, and it is somewhat insulting to claim that decimal did not exist until Western Arabs drew these symbols, when in fact Eastern mathematicians figured most of it how several centuries earlier. Spitzak (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  "There should be a name for this narrow scope that I want to focus on, and there isn't, so I'm going to make one up" is a bad excuse for WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's not an accurate characterization. Names like "Western digits", "Western numerals", "European digits", "European numerals", "Indo-European numerals" are used in at least hundreds of reliable sources, and are relatively common when a source is trying to be explicit and specific about what they're talking about. –jacobolus (t) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  The move proposal was only about one of those names. It is not used in "hundreds of reliable sources". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• oppose per M.Bitton's analysis of sources, 'Arabic numerals' is decidedly the wp:common name—blindlynx 14:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that "Arabic numerals" is ALSO a common name for decimal. The fractions don't matter, what matters is total use, and it does seem like that term is used more often for decimal than for western digits. Spitzak (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  1) That's an unsubstantiated claim. 2) If that was the case, then we mention it in the article (using RS that say so, and not some editor's opinion). M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please realize that counts of how many times "Arabic numerals" occurs on the web are useless, as they are not reporting what percentage is being used for decimal and what percentage is used for western digits. Unless you can figure out a method to count that, these statistics are worthless. Spitzak (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That's another "unsubstantiated claim" regarding what is defined in a dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The dictionary links are however pretty substantial. The solution may be to find and change virtually all Arabic numerals links to point to decimal (using a bar so the text the user sees does not change). I am not sure however if that will stop the endless vandalizing of this page to add information about stuff other than the digits. Spitzak (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Another idea would be to remove the plural from this, call it Arabic numeral. The plural form can direct to decimal. Spitzak (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The easiest and best way to stop the disruptive editing is simply to protect the article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be extremely confusing. Why would the plural form redirect to a different location? The set of more than one Arabic numeral is Arabic numerals, which is what this page is talking about. I also find this to be somewhat improper conflation with decimal, which my understanding is more about the notation as a whole, not the integers used within it. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There are MANY links to Arabic numerals where they really mean decimal numbers (restricted to base-10 numbers, no alpha-numeric ids, and sometimes allowing other symbols such as Indian digits). It would be possible to fix all these links, but this does not fix people who type "Arabic numerals" into the search bar. Spitzak (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that those links are actually meant to go to decimal and not here? Again, decimal seems to be about the wider notation, here about the numerals. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that making the plural and singular pointing to different locations is not a good idea, so this might not solve anything. Spitzak (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

On wikipedia itself, if redirects through Western Arabic numerals are ignored, it appears the majority of links to here are about decimal. I have not done an accurate count however. Spitzak (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The name has been stable for many years and is widely known as Arabic numerals, I do not see any logical purpose behind this request. RiadS99 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  On further searching through Wikipedia it looks like Arabic numerals usually means the western digits. Most links seem to unambiguously limit the symbols to this set, and disallow Eastern Arabic numerals, for instance. Although decimal is often implied, in most cases this is obvious, and others it is clear that non-decimal strings like "00" or "0A" are allowed, or notation like "123_octal" would perhaps work.

  Therefore I think this move proposal will have to be withdrawn. I do not know what to do about the editors that keep inserting stuff about decimal, especially predating the digits, into this page. Except to keep reverting it I guess. Spitzak (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  It may be useful to leave a simple editors note at the top of the article like:

  <!-- PLEASE NOTE: This article is strictly about the numerals themselves. For adding information regarding decimal notation in a broader sense, please use [[Decimal]]. -->

  And perhaps something similar for the History section, too.

  I have done this on a few articles which seem to have perennial editing issues, and it usually is a successful mitigation. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• support TJauteur (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Move to Arabic digits, I agree that "Arabic numerals" refers to the entire system rather than these particular digits, and comments above conflate the scope by citing WP:common name. "Western/European digits" is just misleading/non-neutral as these ignore their origin and they are obv used in the Arab world as well. "Arabic digits" gets loads of hits on Google Scholar, and appears to be the actual common name for this scope Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not a vote and your claim about the WP:COMMONNAME policy doesn't make any sense. Also, if the Arabic numerals refer to the entire system (as you claim, without providing a shred of evidence to back it up), then this article (i.e., the common name) will have to be about the system (which means merging the article about the system into this one). M.Bitton (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

… Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the articles should most likely be merged together and then expanded, since all of them are currently mediocre and incomplete, with title settled by community consensus (though picking a title is much less important than improving the content). The clearest result would come if we had a full RFC with a carefully workshopped text explaining the context and ideally some work put into a draft or two of article variants showing the possibilities, hoping ultimately for significantly wider community involvement. As I expected, this current proposal wasn't well explained up front, most discussion participants don't really understand the context or dispute, and there's not much sign of agreement. –jacobolus (t) 05:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Not without providing the necessary RS that say so in the clearest possible way. I see no reason why most most discussion participants wouldn't understand what is defined in a dictionary. We don't need to pick a title (we already have the undisputed common name). M.Bitton (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Figuring out decimal, Hindu-Arabic numeral system, and History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is a whole other subject. I would very much like an actual documentation clearly stating that "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" means something different than "decimal" and exactly what the differences are. (there are claims that "Hindu-Arabic" excludes non-integers as they were invented in Arabia, but then why is "Arabic" in the title??? I believe this was a made up "fact" by people trying to weasel around WP::COMMONNAME) Spitzak (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I would personally split "Decimal" into two articles, one called "Base ten" and the other called something like "Decimal fraction", with a hatnote at whichever one the title Decimal ends up redirecting to (currently the article tries entirely unsuccessfully to cover two separate topics). An eventual merged article at Hindu–Arabic numerals should then have a top-level section about decimal fractions, as well as some coverage of the topic in its history section, pointing at "Decimal fraction" as a "main" topic for the section. –jacobolus (t) 22:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That should not be done without PROOF that "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is a different subject than "decimal", among many other reasons. You are just trying to find an excuse to avoid COMMONNAME. Spitzak (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The name "decimal" is used in two substantially different senses in our current article Decimal, which is why that article should be split.

Sense 1: base ten. For example, a "decimal logarithm" would be a logarithm to base ten, and a "decimal number system" would be a number system organized around powers of ten. I think this should be a new separate article called Base ten (currently a redirect to Decimal, which does not adequately cover the topic). Like Egyptian numerals and Roman numerals, Hindu–Arabic numerals are an example of a base ten number system.

Sense 2: Decimal fraction (currently a redirect to a confusing and poorly written section of Decimal). This is the sense intended when a 10-year-old primary school student says they are studying "decimals" in school. The more precise name Decimal fraction is more common in work by experts (e.g. mathematical historians), because the word "decimal" by itself is ambiguous, so this would be a better article title.

Historically, most people used a variety of different unit systems which split units up into groups of various sizes, which grew up in an arbitrary and inconsistent way. When they needed to talk about a small amount of something, they would reach for the appropriately sized unit of that type, e.g. could talk about inches instead of miles when representing small distances. But measurements were thought of as integers. When people needed generic non-integer numbers they reached for such tools as Egyptian fractions, sexagesimal fractions (especially in astronomy), and later common fractions.

In Europe, after the 16th century Dutchman Simon Stevin published an influential pamphlet, people started using decimal fractions, i.e. representing non-integers by digits representing tenths, hundredths, thousandths, etc. The idea of decimal fractions is older than that, appearing in e.g. Christopher Clavius's work earlier in the 16th century, and before that in the 10th century work of Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi in Damascus and Jamshid al-Kashi in Persia (c. 1400). Some metrological units were decimalized in 3rd century China. Etc. However, my understanding is that generic decimal fractions never caught on widely, but were only a rare specialist tool, until the past few centuries. In modern times, decimal fractions are now ubiquitous, taught to all schoolchildren and the basis of e.g. the metric system.

A written decimal fraction like "3.1415" is an extension of Hindu–Arabic numerals to non-integer values. But you could also have a decimal fraction which is, say, stored in computer memory or shown on a bead-frame abacus which would not be a Hindu–Arabic numeral. I don't understand what you mean by "without PROOF that 'Hindu-Arabic numerals' is a different subject than 'decimal'". –jacobolus (t) 00:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would very much like an actual documentation clearly stating that "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" means something different than "decimal" and exactly what the differences are. On the inverse, do you have sources claiming that they are synonymous? I would imagine that sources demonstrating that they are not synonyms are unlikely to exist in the first place unless they are responding to supposed claims that they are. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You just said that you think "Decimal" means "integer only" (which "Decimal fractions" means non-integers). I don't agree, but you have just said that "Decimal" means the same thing as one of the pseudo-explanations of "Hindu-Arabic Numeral System" (that it is "not decimal because it is integers only"). What I need is actual DOCUMENTED examples of a "number" that IS "decimal" while simultaneously IS NOT "Hindu-Arabic". Or conversely an actual DOCUMENTED example of a "number" that IS "Hindu-Arabic" and IS NOT "decimal". If you cannot come up with such an example then the two subjects are identical. Spitzak (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You just said that you think "Decimal" means "integer only" I never made any such claim. I think you're confusing me with jacobolus.

What I need is actual DOCUMENTED examples of a "number" that IS "decimal" while simultaneously IS NOT "Hindu-Arabic". Or conversely an actual DOCUMENTED example of a "number" that IS "Hindu-Arabic" and IS NOT "decimal". If you cannot come up with such an example then the two subjects are identical. A decimal numeral system is a positional base-ten system, while the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is a positional base-ten system that uses a specific set of glyphs. The Chinese rod numeral system is a positional base-ten system that uses different glyphs, thereby also a decimal system, but not part of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Does that work for you? ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"'Decimal' means 'integer only' (which 'Decimal fractions' means non-integers" – nobody ever claimed anything remotely similar to that. What I said is that the word "decimal" is sometimes used as a shorthand for the term "decimal fraction", but is also used more generally to mean "base ten", and people who are experts tend to use the complete name "decimal fraction" because it is more precise. I think it would be helpful to move our article to the more precise name and split out content about the more general topic to its own article. Cf. WP:CONTENTSPLIT and Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects. –jacobolus (t) 03:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

(I hope my I think you're confusing me with comment was not understood as an accusation of you saying this, just meant I think our two replies were conflated) ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain "decimal" includes "decimal fractions" for most people who understand the term. Spitzak (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. When people say things like "decimal arithmetic" or "decimal number" or just "decimal" in the context of primary school education, they are usually talking about the topic of decimal fractions (i.e. arithmetic using numbers like 0.001 or −10.2 or 3.14 rather than arithmetic of just integers or "common fractions" like ⁠3/4⁠ or ⁠12/7⁠). But if you go look up expert sources – for instance, scholarly sources about research in elementary education or about mathematical history – they commonly use the explicit and precise term "decimal fraction" directly, rather than the less formal abbreviated term "decimal". I think it would be helpful for our article to do the same, because it would reduce ambiguity about the subject of the article, which currently mashes up two substantially different topics in a confusing way. –jacobolus (t) 04:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, we should have Decimal system (as its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and Decimal fraction, with Decimal as a disambiguation page. Ngl, I was good at maths in school, but was under the impression decimal only referred to decimal fractions (since it was rarely used except for decimal point), and I expect that's very common Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Jacobolus, WT:RFC is good for workshopping RfCs (or just cut out the middleman and ping WhatamIdoing) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The symbols used in the Arabic world are different (multiple different types). The symbols used in European languages changed non-trivially within Europe, and the modern forms are from the 15th century or later (also there are several variants, with some significant regional variation etc.). This is one of the main reasons that the name "Arabic numerals" is problematic: it is easy to get the mistaken idea that we are talking about something that originated in Arabic or primarily about symbols still used in an Arabic context, but neither is true. –jacobolus (t) 04:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I can only see 16 hits on Scholar differentiating between Arabic and western/European digits, it doesn’t appear Unicode's system has been adopted by the scholarship? Unicode says of "Arabic digits" Ambiguous term: Decimal-positional notation spread from India through the Arabic world to Europe. Arabic digits may refer to ASCII digits (because Europe got them from Arabic speakers) or to the digits of the Arabic script. I think this is the primary topic for "Arabic digits" (and common name), and Eastern Arabic digits or Arabic-Indic digits, which is the ambiguity Unicode's referring to , can be addressed with an {{About}} hatnote Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 04:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You are correct that your Unicode reference only uses "ASCII digits", "Western digits", "Latin digits" and "European digits" to refer to the subject of this article. Notably missing is "Arabic digits" or anything ending with "numerals". Spitzak (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

the name "Arabic numerals" is problematic If it was, it wouldn't be used in tens of thousands of RS and millions of other sources. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Arabic digits may be a good idea, especially if there are real hits on that term in other documents. Other articles about sets of 10 symbols should also be renamed from "numerals" to "digits" to match if this is done. Spitzak (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Why would any name be a better name than the common name? M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Because "Arabic numerals" is also a common name for decimal, which is a different subject (decimal can use other symbols, and these symbols are used for non-decimal purposes). Spitzak (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That's an unsubstantiated claim (already discussed above and contradicted by your own conclusion). M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Numerals can refer to Numerical digit or Numeral system, also see WP:SATISFY Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The subject is Arabic numerals (not "numerals" and not "Arabic"). M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Decimal appears to cover a variety of independently-developed examples according to Decimal#History, there’s also Counting rods for positional decimal. Am I right in thinking Hindu–Arabic numeral system is our article on the actual system, and "Arabic numerals" would be redirected there (or the article renamed)? All 800 or so links here would need to be manually (or automatedly) checked/changed if we’re to do that. I agree that articles like Hindustani numerals and Javanese numerals should be changed to digits. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 06:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the two articles cover different things, why would we redirect the common name to a less known one? M.Bitton (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no actual system, or conversely they are all the actual system. This page, Arabic numerals, is about one of the sets of numerals/digits/glyphs used in the Hindu–Arabic numeral system (other sets listed on that page too), which is a decimal system. I think the lead of the decimal page overextends itself as there is not really the decimal system as much as there are decimal systems. The most common decimal system is the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and is commonly referred to as just "the decimal system", but it is not the only one. Extension of on that page is probably doing too much legwork. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

As I have said upthread, our article Decimal tries to cover two different topics, and should be split. The main topic of the page is decimal fractions, i.e. numbers like 1.23 or 0.0625 or 2.718 (which are most commonly represented using Hindu–Arabic numerals, as in these examples, or could be represented some other way); this is what people usually mean by "decimal arithmetic" or "decimals", especially in the context of elementary education. The second (much broader) topic is numeration in base ten in general; this is what people usually mean by "decimal system" (though that phrase seems to have been most popular in the 19th century). These two topics should have separate pages, because the way they are mashed together currently is very confusing to readers. –jacobolus (t) 17:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The most common symbols are NOT "Hindu-Arabic" as they were NOT used in India at the time the "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" was developed. Spitzak (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with such a split, though I think it is worth noting this split used to exist: Special:Diff/796208470. If they are split again, decimal should be kept to refer to base-10, parallel to undecimal for base-11, duodecimal for base-12, hexadecimal for base-16, sexagesimal for base-60 and so on. Perhaps decimal fraction could move to a section of fraction instead of being under decimal or its own page, though I'm sure there would be arguments against such a move. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a full separate page about decimal fractions, since they are an important topic and there is a lot to say about them from various different perspectives (concrete algorithms, history, pedagogy, comparison with other ways of approaching the same problems, etc.) –jacobolus (t) 22:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"Fraction" means a rational number described using two numbers, and is a different subject.

The word "decimal" certainly includes non-integers, otherwise what we call a "decimal point" would have to be called a "decimal fraction point" or something like that. If the repeat overbar is considered part of decimal then it is able to cover all rational numbers that fractions cover, note that this includes all integers (fractions where the denominator divides the numerator).

Basically I don't see any reason to split decimal into integer and non-integer pages. I currently believe this was done as an excuse to have a page called "Hindu...". However it is plausible that the "history" page could remain at History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system with a link to it from decimal and this would satisfy those editors. Spitzak (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect / very confused. The word "fraction" has multiple different meanings (as words are wont to do, since they develop by a historical/social process rather than by one person's logical reasoning), and one use of the word is in the phrase "decimal fraction", which means the set of numbers which can possibly include a decimal point. There are thousands of reliable sources discussing the topic of "decimal fractions". –jacobolus (t) 23:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, nobody is recommending to "split decimal into integer and non-integer pages". This is your invented idea which does not correspond to my proposal. –jacobolus (t) 23:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes you are suggesting there be two pages, quote: "I think it would be good to have a full separate page about decimal fractions". Spitzak (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, the topic of decimal fractions deserves a dedicated page. That is not at all the same as "split decimal into integer and non-integer pages". –jacobolus (t) 23:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

If the overbar is considered part of decimal or decimal fractions, then they can describe all rational numbers. From older paragraphs "decimal fraction" only means fractions where the denominator is a power of 10. Spitzak (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

FYI the overbar is called a vinculum.

From older paragraphs "decimal fraction" only means fractions where the denominator is a power of 10. This is in fact still how they are described on the decimal page. Repeating decimals are generally excluded from being considered decimal fractions.

jacobolus to your point about which means the set of numbers which can possibly include a decimal point, I think it needs to be clarified that decimal fractions are strictly terminating decimals. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's essential to be super strict about what is or isn't a "decimal fraction". We're talking about human use of a moderately vague term, not a precise formal definition in a pure math paper. Any article about decimal fractions should have sections (towards the bottom) about repeating decimals, decimal representation of real numbers, etc. –jacobolus (t) 02:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The article was significantly clearer about its scope a decade and a half ago. (To pick a random version, special:permalink/359359827). –jacobolus (t) 17:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That is the WRONG ARTICLE. That is decimal. This article is supposed to be about the 10 symbols used in most Western countries. Sometimes they are used to write decimal, but they are also used to write Octal and License plates. Spitzak (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. What is "wrong"? This specific discussion sub-thread is discussing the state and history of the article currently at Decimal rather than the article currently at Arabic numerals; we're discussing it partly because there is some relation between that topic and this one, and partly you keep saying confusing things like "Yes apparently decimal is called 'Arabic numerals' more often than anything else". –jacobolus (t) 22:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I did not understand which article you were talking about. I agree your linked version of "decimal" is better than the current decimal, though the second sentence saying it could mean roman numerals seems really wrong. Spitzak (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Roman numerals are a decimal (i.e. base ten) numeral system, based on a decimal counting board and the (also decimal) oral numeral system in Latin. Most other historical numeral systems have also been decimal, based on humans having 10 fingers, but there are also a range of non-decimal systems (such as the ancient Sumerian/Babylonian sexagesimal system and the ancient Maya vigesimal system). –jacobolus (t) 23:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion appears to revolve around what the scope of this page is, and the title that best reflects that scope. Three different titles are currently being considered; Arabic numerals, Western digits, and Arabic digits. Further discussion in this context would be helpful in assessing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BilledMammal (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we would be better off with a full RfC process at this point. The number of editors working through this discussion is quite small and also strongly opinionated in multiple directions (including myself).

The scope of this article is apparently intertwined with the scope of several other articles and redirects:

• Decimal
  • Decimal fraction (R section)
  • Numerical digit (related article)
• Hindu–Arabic numeral system
  • Hindu–Arabic numerals (R alt name, has gone back and forth with targeting)
  • History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system (related article)
• Arabic numerals (this article)
  • Western Arabic numerals (R alt name)
  • Eastern Arabic numerals (Another set of 'Arabic numerals' used in the Hindu–Arabic system)
    • Arabic–Indic numerals (R alt name)
    • Indo-Arabic numerals (R alt name, and confusingly close to Hindu–Arabic numerals)

~ oklopfer (💬) 17:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally I’d start with an an RfC on whether to split out Decimal fraction and rename Decimal to "Decimal system", then an RM proposing changing "numerals" in lots of titles to "digits", and possibly another RM on renaming Hindu–Arabic numeral system to Arabic numeral system or "Arabic numerals". But I’m happy to defer to you Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The "scope" of this page is NOT in question. It is supposed to be about the ten symbols that are in ASCII and are used in many countries to write numbers in many bases, and often combined with Latin letters, spaces, and punctuation to make alphanumeric identifiers. "History" should be strictly limited to how, where, and why each of the ten symbols evolved from earlier symbols. Eastern Arabic numerals is a good example of the desired scope. The proposed move is because the current title means a different scope (decimal) to many readers.

I agree that the scope of the other articles listed is questionable. In particular, we do not have a RS that says that "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" and "decimal" are different subjects, and it appears this is a fiction being propagated by Wikipedia itself. Spitzak (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In particular, we do not have a RS that says that "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" and "decimal" are different subjects, and it appears this is a fiction being propagated by Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure why we've come back to this. You asked above: What I need is actual DOCUMENTED examples of a "number" that IS "decimal" while simultaneously IS NOT "Hindu-Arabic". Or conversely an actual DOCUMENTED example of a "number" that IS "Hindu-Arabic" and IS NOT "decimal". If you cannot come up with such an example then the two subjects are identical. I then gave a very straightforward example of a decimal system that is outside of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, that being rod numerals; it is both positional and base-10.

This is like saying "give me an example of a quadrilateral that is not a rectangle, or otherwise a rectangle that is not a quadrilateral. If you can't, then they are the same thing." Decimal is a larger group of systems to which the Hindu-Arabic numeral system applies, just as quadrilaterals relate to rectangles. The more specific group has additional properties. For the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, this is the usage of specific glyphs; for rectangles, this is the usage of only right angles.

If anything is a "fiction being propagated by Wikipedia itself", I would say it's this lead sentence on decimal: It is the extension to non-integer numbers (decimal fractions) of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. This is an overgeneralization of decimal systems; it is merely describing a specific one. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was complaining about. The idea that "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" means "decimal restricted to integers" has appeared on Wikipedia, with no RS. It is fairly easy to find articles that use the term "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" that talk about non-integers, and according to Wikipedia non-integers were Arabic (meaning the correct name for integers-only would have to be "Hindu numeral system"). I believe the sentence you quoted about "extension to non-integers" is a Wikipedia fiction, invented to avoid merging the articles.

Almost all the history on The Hindu-Arabic system happened CENTURIES before the western digits were invented, so your statement that they use these digits is false. Spitzak (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Almost all of the history of the English language occurred centuries before the US was established. That doesn't mean the US doesn't speak English. It still falls under the categorization of the English speaking world, just as the numerals this page discusses still fall under the Hindu-Arabic numeral system.

Your conclusion that it was to avoid the merging of the two articles makes no sense. Decimal systems are a broader category. Two separate pages should absolutely be maintained between the larger categorization and the more specific one, just as American English is a separate page from English language. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Or to go back to my other example: square, rectangle, rhombus, quadrilateral. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Last point: the Hindu-Arabic numeral system doesn't only use the numerals discussed on this page. Eastern Arabic numerals are also used for the system, as are the various sets of Indian numerals. They are all used in the larger system, depending on region of the world. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Sources overwhelmingly use "Arabic numerals" as this is the longstanding, widely recognized common name. Source analysis shows that the term Western digits enjoys virtually no use in reliable sources (or anywhere). I also checked JSTOR, which returns 26,081 hits for "Arabic numerals" and only 3 for "Western digits". Dictionaries and other standard reference works support the usage in this article. The article includes hatnotes, explanations of related topics and terminology, and links to other articles. If this can be improved, that is a worthy effort. But changing to an obscure title to try to enforce a particular definition and settle content disputes is totally off base. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Arabic numerals should be kept per WP:COMMON NAME. @Oklopfer's solution of adding a note clarifying the articles subject is better than renaming the article as it keeps the common name and solves the issue of edit warring. Streetr4 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. And doubt any of this discussion should make it into the article. It seems a rather idiosyncratic interpretation and bound to cause more confusion than clarification. Walrasiad (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)