Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other WikiProject Numbers talk pages redirect here.

It greatly saddens me

It greatly saddens me to learn that Wikipedia is now run by idiots.

I heartily agree that routine and irrelevant number facts should be eliminated.

But when I see the utter destruction that has been wreaked on the article 24 (number) it becomes obvious that the so-called editors who did that wrecking job know virtually nothing about mathematics.

Such people are exactly the wrong people to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.36.148.11 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-one "runs" Wikipedia. Rules are decided on by consensus after discussion. Similarly, disagreements about content are decided by consensus. As user: Allan Nonymous told you at Talk:24 (number), New guidelines were drafted to remove extraneous number facts see: WP:NUM/G. If you feel some of the material removed from 24 (number) should be restored then discuss it on that article's talk page. If you feel that some of the changes to WP:NUM/G are inappropriate then discuss it on this page. Either way, don't attack other users. Meters (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of 198

I started a discussion at Talk:198 (number)#Notability that is of interest to this project. lethargilistic (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related deletion discussions

Please see:

-- Beland (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

54 Review?

Hey all. I have been spending some time on 54 (number) over the past few days (basing it primarily on 69 (number)), so I might nominate it for GA. As the bullet points show, I still need to prosify a bit more, but this is the shape of what I'm thinking. If you have time, can you take a look and tell me if it's missing anything glaring? Or if you have other ideas for pure math topics to investigate? If you have ideas for non-math topics, I would be interested in those as well. lethargilistic (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more worried about the fact the article's number facts haven't been assessed under WP:NUM/G. There are quite a lot of WP:NUM/OEIS cites that need to be removed/improved. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous: Thanks for looking at it. I have been assessing the number facts under NUM/G on the talk page, although those notes probably look like a mess to other people. I'm not a mathematician, so I will mostly defer on interestingness. I restored the note about 54 being a 19-gonal number because it is the first (non-trivial) element of a non-routine integer sequence and that goes in under WP:NUM/ROUTINE. As for the OEIS citations, I am not using OEIS as a proxy for interestingness, which is what is prohibited by WP:NUM/OEIS. It would be more accurate to say I'm using WP:NUM/NOPAGE as a proxy for uninterestingness. Accordingly, I don't think WP:NUM/G suggests that I need to seek out other sources just to not source to OEIS. lethargilistic (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind about 19-gonal. Polygonal numbers have a page, but enneadecagonal numbers do not and there hasn't been any significant research into them. Being that touch more specific also eliminated the other facts in that paragraph. lethargilistic (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One problem of the article is the calculation table, which is not helpful at all, and instead they can be produced by human calculation. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table is neat, mostly. It's a common feature on other number articles and doesn't hurt. lethargilistic (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well but not the GAs: 69 and 1. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not make any kind of sense on 1 because that is the unit. For 69, that's just one article, and I doubt they considered it one way or another. lethargilistic (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the project has not discussed this before? I have not checked the update anyway, so you might ask others for the table calculations. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis for your wikiproject

Hello friends. Here is a little analysis for your Wikiproject, including all the articles you are tracking with the template. Hope it helps in your tasks and I am open to any suggestion. Regards. emijrp (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]