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.

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]

Mystic fluff - 7 and 12

In an almost interesting way, these two numbers probably are the biggest attractors of cultural fluff: one is the first definitely "not round" (in some sense; the first coprime to 60, for example), the other is the "most round".

Anyway, the history of 7 is interesting: in 2019 it was about 60k bytes, including extended lists of factoids under headings like "Religion and mythology" - "Old Testament" ; "New Testament"... "Science" - "Astronomy" ; "Biology"... and so on. Then in a single edit, someone removed 3/4 of the article, which then grew gradually from 15k to 20k. In 2021 (diff) after an editor pointed out that 7 was the only number article with no "cultural fluff" (I'm using "fluff" only semi-disparagingly), the separate article Symbolism of the number 7 was merged back in, bringing the count to 30k. It then grew gradually, with huge amounts of mathematical content of dubious significance added by one particular editor to around 50k, and has since been whittled back to around 30k. But the current article, it seems to me is rather the worst of all possible worlds. The "mathematical" section is long, and still a lot of it really is marginal: "There are 7 frieze groups in two dimensions..." to give an example. Meanwhile, the "cultural" bit, which you would expect to be extensive, has been reduced to two sections, incongruously called "Classical antiquity" and "Culture", with an audio recording of a kind of 19th century WP article in between. The article Symbolism of the number 7 now redirects to a nonexistent section.

I think that in many ways the version in 2019 was better: it was in list format, which makes it easy to skim read, and I think had a representative number of the cultural factoids. I invite suggestions on how to restore balance. I see that there is a cogent argument for a separate "cultural symbolism" article, on the grounds that this is much bigger than for other numbers, but I also see the counterargument.

I haven't addressed 12 (number) yet, but there is a note under Judaism and Christianity about "explaining the meaning of 12"; I don't really understand this, but suspect that if I did understand it I would disagree. We can put in any number of verifiable statements made in the bible, but any "deep meaning" is likely to be literally inexplicable.

Sorry, this is a bit scrappy, but please comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]