Talk:0th

Veracity of some of the definitions

Does anyone have any evidence that "0th" or "zeroth" refers to the following:

0th grade, another name for kindergarten
0th planet, a name for Vulcan (hypothetical planet)
0th United States Congress, also called the Congress of the Confederation
Zeroth-order logic^{[citation needed]}
Zeroth order approximation; see Orders of approximation^{[citation needed]}
Zeroth, the fastest demo or highest score on a level or episode in N (video game)

?

El Chivo 2 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these wp:DAB-pages merely serve as a pointer into our articles for people looking for information through external or internal search functions. The idea is not that entries should be sourced—perhaps even on the contrary

. There really is no need for sources here. That said, OTOH such sources could indeed be interesting for adding a little sourced note about the usage of "0th" in the corresponding articles themselves. - DVdm (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, though, it isn't in the interest to our readers to imply that such definitions exist if they in fact don't? What is the protocol to upholding our core content policy of verifiability on disambig pages? El Chivo 2 (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DABREF: Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed. - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not in those articles.

And, with the exception of the kindergarten, Zeroth-order logic, and Orders of approximation articles, not even a claim or mention of 0th or zeroth is made in them.

I understand WP:DABREF; that's why I posted the request above here on the talk page instead of readding CN tags. El Chivo 2 (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly cannot add the tags here. As far I can see, we can do three things:

mention "0th" in the corresponding articles,
remove the entries for which there is no mention of "0th" in the corresponding articles,
leave them sitting here, referring readers to articles, if they would be searching for something—or anything—related to "0th".

I.m.o. it's no big deal, but I'd opt to keep them. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's not urgent. if I have time I'll try to add some mentions in the articles lacking them. and of course anyone else can as well. El Chivo 2 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0th element of an array

According to user Gordongriesel, "there is no zeroth element of an array.", so he removed it. The literature seems to disagree —see this books search— so I restored the entry. DVdm (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think “… for Dummies” grade books are a solid proof, try searching also e.g.: 1st OR first array item OR element is numbered 0 OR zero.

I am also convinced that the intro “0th or zeroth is an ordinal for the number zero sometimes used under zero-based numbering” is wrong – it's not related to zero-based numbering, but when that new first item (became “0th” to prevent shift of current numbering) was added later, or is somehow special (e.g. “0th” issue as preview/pilot).

—Mykhal (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

move to zeroth

Should move to zeroth because standard English first uses only letters for words and in relation to those abbreviates secondarily and (though Wikipedia isn't primarily technical) standard technical writing is to write 'one' to 'nine' with letters and 10 and higher with numbers: would be same from 'zero' to 'nine', and same as first isn't redirected to 1st.--dchmelik (t|c) 07:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]