Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 7

I've notice that many of the number articles list the bases in which they are palendromes. Many of of those are "trivial" palendromes; if ${\displaystyle n=a\times (b+1)}$, with a < b, then ${\displaystyle n=aa_{b}}$ (If a = b+1, then ${\displaystyle n=121_{b}}$ or, if b = 2, then ${\displaystyle n=9=1001_{2}}$, but this may be getting more complicated then appropriate for the definition of a "trivial" palendrome.

In other words, if n = c × d is composite, with c < d-1 (or c = d), n is a palendrome in base d−1. I propose that if we list the bases in which a number is palendromic, we should omit those which are one less than a factor t of n which is greater than ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {n+{\tfrac {1}{4}}}}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}}$. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Simpler idea (maybe equivalent?): we only list palindromes of four or more digits. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Equivalent would be palindromes of three or more digits. I'm not sure a three-digit palindrome is "trivial". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This applying to many numbers and number entries, I would like to get consensus somewhere before starting to implement it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed (because Eighth power was recently created) that we have a series of power articles,

• Square
• Cube
• Fourth power
• Fifth power
• Sixth power
• Seventh power
• Eighth power

and I was wondering if we should add a simple template in the "See also" section to include this as a template, or possibly change {{Classes of natural numbers}} to allow the sections to be individually collapsible. The former could be done fairly easily, but the latter requires some discussion, as it require re-expanding dozens of articles, and might not be done automatically. I'm not sure replacing {{Navbox}} with {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} won't break something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that all of these higher powers have sufficient independent notability for their own separate articles. And I'm somewhat suspicious that the article creator is a returning known sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI CASSIOPEIA moved the new article to draftspace as Draft:Eighth power. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin and David Eppstei: Greetings. I moved Eighth power to Draft:Eighth power as no sources were provided. Just an additional note, any articles related to mathematics / technical with half the page full of equation/proofs/etc is hard to us, the NPP/AfC reviewers, to review the articles as it is challenging for us to understand the content, it would be good if we have editors who are experts with good standing in Wikipedia in that fields to help up.Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{RM notice ...}} with {{subst:RM notice ...}}. not me but somebody else. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all numbers from 300 to 999 with no article are non-section redirects to one of 300 (number), 400 (number), 500 (number), 600 (number), 700 (number), 800 (number), 900 (number). For example, 362 (number) redirects to 300 (number) and not 300 (number)#360 or 300 (number)#362. I suggest all number redirects should go to a section about the number if it exists, otherwise a section about the decade like 900 (number)#940s. This always exists for 3-digit numbers. There is often very little information about the number but that's still better than the start of a long list where 99% is about other numbers. All 3-digit numbers have at least the prime factorization, or say it's prime. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. I did this for the 4-digit redirects such as 1111 (number) about a year ago. Certes (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I've done 3xx (plus a few stray 2xx that were wrong) and will continue in a few days if no one shouts at me. Certes (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Certes (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:List of numbers#Table of natural numbers; I don't think the list is very well watched (certainly not by me), and I'm proposing a reversion of a section. I think the format might be of interest to the project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 1 for a move discussion involving numbers 101 to 125, note that after those have been processed numbers 126 to 150, then 151 to 175, then 176 to 200, then finally any other. Any that are objected at that discussion page or at RMT will be subject to a normal RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Centered pentachoric number#What number is this?; I'd like help determining if this unsourced out-of-the-way article belongs in Wikipedia or in {{figurate numbers}}, where I ran across it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

An enthusiastic IP editor has made a number of edits which are being reverted, specifically adding links to power of two etc. to articles such as 100,000. Is it appropriate? (copied from previous discussion) tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 16:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

An enthusiastic logged-in editor has made a duplicate of the discussion immediately above. Is it appropriate? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, the reason I brought this thing here is because of Dhrm77's suggestion to bring the overlinking down here, as seen by this edit. Somehow Dhrm77 replied about the overlinking (of all these Power of 2) by those IPs) at the upper section. Let me rename the upper section now, but thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 03:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

An enthusiastic IP editor has made a number of edits which are being reverted, such as converting 2048 (number) and 4096 (number)‎‎ from redirects to articles, and adding links to power of two etc. to articles such as 100,000.(Covered by next section) About 20 articles are affected. Can we agree whether these changes are a good idea? Certes (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Polyamorph, Dhrm77, and The Lord of Math: I've invited the IP editor to this discussion. Certes (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment the two articles which have come to my attention 2048 (number) and 4096 (number)‎‎ appear to fail WP:NUMBER. Unless the IP user can provide sources as to why these numbers are in fact notable enough to require a standalone article then the redirects should stand. The IP should be warned that they may be blocked if they continue reverting these redirects.Polyamorph (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to take part in this discussion, but it's 11:30pm in my time zone on a Friday night, so you might expect a longer response. Cheers, tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, first we are already talking about 2 different things here:

First is the addition of power of two and power of three by an IP user. I reverted the first one I saw, because it seemed redundant with what came next.. but since there are articles about powers of 2 and 3, then why not link to those..

second is the standalone articles for 2048 and 4096. My feeling is that these numbers are used all the time in programming and analog to digital conversion, and I would lean to be in favor of keeping these in a standalone article.

But perhaps we should start by spliting this conversation into these 2 subjects. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dhrm77, Certes, and Polyamorph: Courtesy IP address: 176.88.102.71

Contents of some of the pages that were created by that user:

In this state, this page definitely fails WP:NUMBER. But I think that some of these pages do have (a slight) hope of turning into articles. I might try to find these interesting properties. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 16:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dhrm77. So let me split itso the upper part is about the notability of numbers while the lower part is about linking the power of two's. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 16:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise, we could place of link to power of two on the power itself, for example :

• 131,072 – 2¹⁷

Dhrm77 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Why not? It achieves the desired effect while avoiding redundancy. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to wikilink formulas, or parts of formulas, especially when the link is not to that exact formula, but rather to part of it (in this case, the 2^ part but not the exponent). See e.g. MOS:EGG: why should a reader expect the text "2¹¹" to go to that article rather than an article about exponentiation more generally, or 11'th powers, or whatever? I'd rather see it the way 2048 and 4096 are now linked: "power of two 2¹¹", so that the target of the link is clear even without clicking or hovering. So I think the IP's edits e.g. to add this text to 100,000 are harmless and better than the suggested alternative. Just because we find some of the IP's edits problematic doesn't mean we should go out of our way to avoid all of the IP's ideas. But otherwise I agree with the discussion above: 2048 and 4096 are potentially independently notable from the powers of two more generally, but the IP's version doesn't show it, and until someone does it's better to have them as redirects. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you've dramatically cleaned up 2 and 7 by removing sections tangentially linked to the number. I understand the reasons and the pages certainly look tidier, but we may risk throwing away a few babies with the bathwater. Before continuing with other numbers, do other editors have any comments? Certes (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

More than a few...I vehemently oppose this clean-up and strongly suggest reverting to the old (albeit lengthy) article until you can justify this kind of clean-up. Many of Wikipedia's pages are useful (in particular these numerical articles) precisely _because_ of this kind of trivia 121.208.147.104 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I preferred the article for 7 before the information was purged. My favorite thing about number articles has always been the mythology, symbolism, and obscure references that come in useful (especially when studying literature). Right now, the 7 article is very short and it seems arbitrary to include the mathematics section, rather than the symbolism section for instance.

Article size is important, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and the shorter article in this case doesn't seem to make Wikipedia better in my opinion.

Excess information can be split into a different page, however, the main article should still contain sections summarizing the different topics. This is how most long articles are fixed. Pythagimedes (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced cruft should be deleted, not lovingly saved and elaborated. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s incorrect, unsourced information should be properly sourced rather than deleted (or tagged “citation needed”). If it fails verification, then it can be removed Pythagimedes (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced information significant to the subject, maybe. But I said "cruft", and in this case that's mostly what it was. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Formal request has been received to merge:Lakh to Indian numbering system; and Crore to Indian numbering system. Both dated: August 2020. Proposer's Rationale: Been open and articles tagged for over 6 months and likely no sign of consensus. One of two dependent discussions poorly set up independently to add to mess. Needs resolution. Discuss >>>here<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning for any newcomers where the number articles live. Historically, titles from 1 to about 9999 were reserved for years. Having realised that AD 1 is not the primary topic for the term "1", the articles now reside at:

Further details at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Table. Certes (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Certes, Thanks, that's useful. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Many of our articles about integers shared two troubling shortcomings:

1. a lot of entries without references
2. a lot of entries that were crufty

Regarding referencing, not every single thing in an article requires referencing. The policy on original research notes an exception Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations for routine calculations. That said, while we don't need a reliable source to tell us that 10 is the integer between nine and 11, most of the statements in such an article don't qualify for this exception and ought to be referenced.

The more challenging issue will be to determine what statements deserve inclusion and which ones should be removed.

One of the reasons for writing this is my observation that @Deacon Vorbis: removed about 75% of 7 in January of this year. I see that discussed above in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Pruning_number_articles. That removal wasn't reverted, but that removal took out material very similar to material still extant in articles such as 6 and 8.

I think that removal took out too much, but I immediately agreed that some of the articles had ventured into coat rack territory, hence this discussion.

I note that the notability criteria for existence of an article emphasizes the mathematical properties of the number. However, when talking about the appropriate material to be included in an article I would push back if anyone argued that the discussion ought to be limited to the mathematical properties. There is little doubt that there are interesting mathematical properties of 13, for example, but that number also occupies a special place in other fields, and those uses deserve inclusion. The smaller integers are going to have both interesting mathematical properties and interesting nonmathematical properties so there won't be any question about the existence of an article, but we may have to discuss what types of things belong in an article.

As examples of extremes, we have an article about the integer 1729, which exists because of its mathematical properties, and almost all of the discussion in the article relates to mathematical property. In contrast, we have an article about the integer 666, but that article exists primarily because of the existence of the number in literature, particularly religious literature. The article itself does have a discussion of mathematical properties, but probably wouldn't warrant a standalone article on that basis alone.

I'm thinking of putting something together as a standalone essay but wanted to start the discussion here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Essay_regarding_inclusion_criteria_for_integer_articles--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just happened to see this (I'm really trying to limit my activity, and the ping above is broken, so it was fortunate I caught the post). Just FYI, someone copied all the stuff I cut out of the article on 7 into Symbolism of the number 7, and then trimmed some back out, but left an awful lot. I also gutted 2 (number), to which someone added a little back (including some silly stuff, like number of strands in DNA, number of stars in a binary star system, etc). After that, I kind of lost my stomach for this. The smaller you get, the worse the cruft tends to be, a consequence of the Strong Law of Small Numbers. Frankly, if there's anything to say about the symbolism of 7 for example, it should probably get merged back in, if it can be written about encyclopedically, with good sourcing. But contextless lists of places that 7 appears, or articles that happen to contain the number 7 in their title...ehhhh. I've mostly left the mathematical properties alone, but I think those tend to get pretty iffy too – again, especially so the smaller you get. See User talk:Deacon Vorbis/Archive 2020#M43112609 and the GNG for some of my thoughts while my frustration was still fresh after a particularly extreme case. Anyway, if I get the motivation, I'll take a look at what you've written up and see if I have any comments. Either way, good luck. I fear Wikipedia is losing the war against cruft. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Even 1729 (number) was getting pretty crufty. I just cut it back some more. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist but these articles stand out as below our usual standards, partly due to the large number of inexperienced contributors wanting to add their favourite use of the number. As hinted in the essay, we might apply the "serial test": if a similar point could be made about most numbers within some range then those factoids probably belong together in an article about the topic rather than being dispersed over number articles. For example, I helped to yank out the jersey numbers, putting those which merited a mention into List of retired numbers (along with their sparse citations). We might make limited exceptions such as Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan but I've been reverting good-faith additions and wouldn't like to see the number pages cluttered with obscure sports players again. We've also purged niche interests such as bingo nicknames and okrugs of Saint Petersburg which appeared on many number pages. It might be useful to analyse a couple of typical number pages in detail and find a consensus for what it should contain, as a precedent for pruning the others. Certes (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I applaud any efforts to improve this problem. One test which would quickly dispense with the Saint Petersburg example is: "Is this a property of the number, or is it just the number in use?" I recently removed the bit from 4 about how in ASCII 4 is the code for EOT (end of transmission; archaic), on the grounds that if this is significant we need to list every major character set ever defined. Like we would have to mention London N4, NW4, W4, SW4, SE4 and so on. I have also wondered about the list of "numeral symbols", and about lists of representations in various bases. (Did you know that 4 to the base 16384 is written as 4?) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Imaginatorium, I like the formulation "Is this a property of the number, or is it just the number in use?". That's what I was getting at when I made reference to page numbers, and was my justification for removal of " The Roman numeral IV (usually) stands for the fourth-discovered satellite of a planet or minor planet (e.g. Jupiter IV)" I'm in astronomy fan but that's a bit too much. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between articles like 1001 (number) (which, I'm guessing from the title, is about an integer and not the name of a popular British detergent in the 1960s) and articles like 9 (which is equally about a number but doesn't say so in the title and might attract text which belongs in 9 (disambiguation) or in the rubbish bin)? Certes (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's just to distinguish them from articles about years. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

One topic which is often repeatedly removed and replaced is gematria – a selection of words whose letter values total the title number. One example is at 19 (number)#Islam. It would be useful to have consensus on whether these add value or can get out and stay out. Certes (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)