|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 1
TemplateParts:
In the /Sandbox I partially re-arranged the pages 1-10 as per the template. I'm not quite sure if the headers "Sets of N" fits well with "other fields". BTW shall we include some sort of a Navbar? -- User:Docu
This sphenic number thing must go, see talk:composite number. -- Egil 10:18, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) At Template:numbers_E1 I added a text which can be used as {{msg:numbers_E1}} to display (e.g. at 80): Shall we use this for numbers 11-99? User:Docu
On another matter, it looks like the Number N (number) proposal will win in a landslide. If no one else wants to do it, I'd be willing to change the number articles over to the new format. PrimeFan 22:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Stubs: Unless they are part of a series (e.g. 1001-1009) which are more developed. I feel we should avoid adding articles of this size. Maybe we should add something here as well. -- User:Docu Placement of yearI've been recently editing the article on 13 (number) and had a back and forth issue with user:docu regarding the placement of the reference to the year AD13. I am aware of the way the project wants to lay out the page, but I don't think it makes any sense at all to have a section "The number 13 is..." "...the year AD 13". This is pretty meaningless, reads badly and is presented in such a way that it is not at all useful. I would suggest either a header 'For the year AD 13 see 13' or include it in the footer after the list of related numbers, e.g. I have tried both of these and they have been reverted. What are other people's thoughts? I don't want to get into an edit war, but I think the current method is just plain wrong. --HappyDog 01:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My main objection is the fact that it doesn't read very well. If I wasn't aware of this project (as I previously wasn't) I would naturally rewrite it to read better (as I previously did) and I suspect others will do the same. Imagine how it would read if the list also included 'The number 13 is... The number before 14.'! It seems a bit too obvious to list. One solution might be to change 'The number 13 is' to 'The number 13 could refer to' but this doesn't work in most of the other cases. Do you get my point? --HappyDog 08:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) Another format for the links to previous/following numbers, added by Schneelocke, separate by a <hr> from the article:
The table has the advantage that it links to 35,36 as well as 38,39. Personally I'd like to see 30 and 40 included as well. Depending on the screen size, it may be a bit too tall, the "see also" takes up less space in this regards. -- User:Docu More choices for navigation bars (now also with tables): Template:Numbers_50s and Template:Numbers_60s:
They can be seen on white (article namespace) background on 55 (number) and 60 (number). If we use a table, we should probably avoid the <hr> mainly used for disambiguation. As on the default skin, the color #cccccc of table tends to rival with the one of the Wikipedia logo, I used a slightly grayed white on the msg versions above. Personally, I prefer the msg solution over sequence table inserted in the articles. -- User:Docu
As the msg are being edited, I placed the version available when posting a/m comment. In the meantime, I made the numbers a bit smaller, e.g. Template:Numbers_110s:
Personally, I think it's usefull if the 10/20/30 are also linked (either an all from 10-99 or just on 10/20/30/40. At some point we will have to chose which version we'd like to include in the template. -- User:Docu
In the meantime Sj, found a solution to include the navbar in the table, e.g. the following to versiona (I used "subst" freeze the presentation of {{msg:numbers_40s}} {{msg:numbers_60s}} ):
Another variation is the following, integrating one of Sj's messages:
Source is: <table border=1 style="float: right; border-collapse: collapse;">
<tr><th colspan=2 align=center>66
<tr><td>[[Cardinal number|Cardinal]] <td>sixty-six
<tr><td>[[Ordinal number|Ordinal]] <td>66th (sixty-sixth)
<tr><td>[[Factorization]] <td><math>2 \cdot 3 \cdot 11</math>
<tr><td>[[Roman numeral]] <td>LXVI
<tr><td>[[Binary numeral system|Binary]]<td>1000010
<tr><td>[[Hexadecimal]] <td>42
<tr><td colspan=2 align=center>{{msg:numbers_60s}}
</table>
Maybe we decide on a way to rotate the versions solutions .. or keep one or the other. -- User:Docu Deletionists' LobbyingI wish to make you all aware of a disturbing trend. The militant deletionist User:Eloquence, upset that the vote on the number pages didn't quite go his way, has sent several users, (User:Guillman, User:Cimon avaro, myself among others) form letters insinuating that they didn't think their votes all the way through and urging them to reconsider their votes. I should never have to tell anyone that I thought my vote thoroughly and that I take it seriously; that should be implicit. The vote has taken place and the issue needs to be brought to closure and relegated to archive talk pages. Correct information will never hurt Wikipedia's reputation. Militant deletionists will. You are doing an excellent job creating a resource that is intuitive, entertaining and highly useful. Thanks to the number pages on 1 to 101 I have made myself simple mnemonics for phone numbers and my bank PIN numbers. Del arte 13:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Notation standardsI've added multiplication dots (·) in the 200 and 300 pages where there were only spaces, but suddenly I realised that no everyone might consider this an improvement. Is there any chosen standard about that ? Should we write : I'd also like to ask, shall we write :
Template questionsWhy is it that tables have, under cardinals, "sixty-one" for example, when they should be "61"? I can understand this usage for the ordinals, but standardization needs to be made. Dysprosia 09:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
<table border=1 style="float: right; border-collapse: collapse;"> <tr><th colspan=2 align=center>161 <tr><td>[[Cardinal number|Cardinal]] <td>161 (one hundred and sixty-one <tr><td><td>or one hundred sixty-one) <tr><td>[[Ordinal number|Ordinal]] <td>161st (one hundred and sixty-first <tr><td>or one hundred sixty-first) <tr><td colspan=2 align=center> </table> GUllman 16:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>
1729 is now unprotectedThe page on the number 1729 is now unprotected, but I don't know for how long. I took advantage of this window to add that 1729 is a Zeisel number and also to add the links to the Spanish and Italian articles on the number. I also want to add that handy number bar to the Docuan table, but I don't know which one is appropriate here. PrimeFan 17:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) RFC: 132 as an expletiveAn anonymous user added a paragraph to the article on 132 to the effect that 132 is sometimes used as an expletive because of its binary representation. Another anonymous user deleted that paragraph saying that 132 the expletive failed the Google test. I'd like someone else, preferrably a logged-in user, to take a look at Talk:132 (number) and make a decision on whether or not to reinstate that paragraph. PrimeFan 21:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
