Category talk:Integers

Sort keys
The following sort key system is used (please correct deviations from this system):


 * 0 to 9 have sort keys 00 to 09 so they all sort under heading 0
 * 10 to 99 have sort keys 1 0 to 9 9, inserting a space between the digits so they always sort before numbers with more digits
 * 100 to 999 need no explicit sort key (taking the article name, or any DEFAULTSORT, as the implicit sort key)
 * 1000 and up: Each number n has sort key of form xEyy n, where:
 * x is the first digit of n (so n sorts under that heading in the category).
 * The letter E (or e, it doesn't matter) signals Scientific notation (for example 1e4 = 104).
 * yy (with a leading 0 if needed) is the number of digits after the first digit, so numbers with more digits always sort after those with fewer digits.
 * The sort key ends with a space followed by n itself, so numbers with same first digit and number of digits (meaning same xeyy) are sorted in normal increasing order.
 * Example: 65536 (number) gets sort key 6e04 65536

This section is now historical, per below (that section dated 17 September 2016). I've moved it below the fold, and signed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Subcategories
True or false: the sub-categories of this category are useful. (This really isn't necessary because all the integers are put into the category Integers, and so are many of the kinds of numbers Wikipedia has articles for.) 66.245.79.136 21:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * True or false: Talk page comments that begin "True or false:" are annoying. - dcljr 06:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: false. The subcategories are very sparsely populated. Consider, for example, Category:Prime numbers.

What I think would be useful is a category Category:Number classes that would link to articles such as Perfect number, Prime number, Fibonacci number, i.e. named sets of numbers. Dbenbenn 21:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree with that. An article can explain the concept of Foo Number a lot better than a category. Especially as many higher numbers do not have their own articles (nor should they). Radiant_* 08:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sort keys
The following sort keys are used for the articles about specific integers to present the illusion of numeric sorting. -- Rick Block 03:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(moved to the top of the page)


 * Why are 1 digit numbers a special case, sorted under 0? After all, this scheme doesn't get numbers sorted numerically anyway.  Isn't the point to have all numbers starting with digit $$x$$ grouped together, then sorted numerically within that grouping?  Dbenbenn 02:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorting the first ten under 0 groups them together. Without doing this the single digit numbers would be scattered across the first digit indices (which IMO would make them harder to find).  We could do a scheme where ALL the integers are keyed under, say, 0, and all are in order.  This would require adding an explicit sort key to each article (the scheme as currently implemented required adding sort keys to only a small percentage of the articles). -- Rick Block 03:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good but how about using a bot to make the changes everywhere? Radiant_* 08:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive_2. – ABCD 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(link updated, Patrick 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

How about sorting by number of digits?
How about sorting the integers by number of digits first, then string sorting after that? This would give a convenient grouping on magnitude as well...

1-digit numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

2-digit numbers: 10, 11, ..., 99

3-digit numbers: ...

...

User:Jmason888 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How do we decide which integers are interesting?
There are an awful lot of integers. How do we decide which ones are worth including in Wikipedia?


 * Like everything else in Wikipedia: we argue the pros and cons, and try to come to a consensus. See WikiProject Numbers for further discussion on this. sjorford (talk)  20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like an awesome analogue to the smallest uninteresting integer paradox, as I'm sure has been noted before. The Smallest Integer Without A Wikipedia Problem. How long can an integer hold that position before someone writes an article about it. The current answer appears to be 161, although several earlier integers are listed for (probably unsuccessful) deletion.
 * - Ncsaint 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * make that 162. Ncsaint 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was goofing around one day and wondered something Is 2520 the smallest number divisible by the first ten counting numbers? If it is that may not be interesting, I was just curious.--T. Anthony 06:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The least common multiple of 1-10 inclusive has the prime factorization 23325171 (see least common multiple), which is 2520. I'd say this doesn't make 2520 interesting.  This is the 10th entry of the integer sequence A003418.  There are over 100,000 integer sequences in this database. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we just include them all?
 * Not by hand, perhaps. But with some script, like:

while (n < aleph0) make_page(n++); print "Done! Now for the real numbers!;
 * David Olivier (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation tag
So what is the basis for including the (number) disambiguation tag in very large numbers which do not correspond to years, like 144000 (number)? Obviously the conflict with years is not likely for several millenia, by which point we'll have surely revamped our disambiguation methods on the Galactic Wikipedia, so from whence does this come? All it provides is another hurdle for users to go through when linking to notable numbers. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

23?
where is it? :-) 62.56.50.124 18:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

199E03 vs. 199e03
A helpful anon changed the sort key for 1387 (number) from 199E03 to 199e03. I reverted, per the instructions above, but it seems that the key really is 199e03 for most 4-digit numbers starting with one. We should probably change the description here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a detailed post before seeing this. Category:Integers currently uses an unsystematic mixture of sort keys. Some intervals don't follow the current description at top of this page, and that description is already somewhat unsystematic and incomplete. Many new number articles are incorrectly sorted until somebody knowing the relevant system or practice comes by. I have edited many sort keys to sort the category correctly, but I sometimes have to first view source of other articles in the interval because practice varies. I suggest the following system. It uses that e sorts after all digits so no strings of 9's have to be inserted before e. All articles will be sorted in the same order as now.


 * 0 to 9 have sort keys 00 to 09 so they all sort under heading 0 (same as current)
 * 10 to 99 have sort keys 1 0 to 9 9, inserting a space between the digits so they always sort before numbers with more digits (same as current for 10 to 29, but not 30 to 99)
 * 100 to 999 have no sort key (same as current for 100 to 299, but not 300 to 999)
 * 1000 and up: Each number n has sort key of form xeyy n, where:
 * x is the first digit of n (so n sorts under that heading in the category).
 * The letter e signals Scientific notation (for example 1e4 = 104).
 * yy (with a leading 0 if needed) is the number of digits after the first digit, so numbers with more digits always sort after those with fewer digits.
 * The sort key ends with a space followed by n itself, so numbers with same first digit and number of digits (meaning same xeyy) are sorted in normal increasing order.
 * Example: 65536 (number) gets sort key 6e04 65536 (it currently has 69e04 65536 in practice but should probably have 6999E04 65536 according to the incomplete description).

Advantages of the above:
 * It is systematic and should be relatively easy to understand and remember. All articles from 0 to 99 are already created so the different systems below 100 should not confuse editors.
 * 0 to 29 and 100 to 299 require no edits to the current sort keys. This is most of the current articles.
 * All 3-digit numbers require no sort key so they will automatically be sorted correctly when articles are created without a sort key. Most new creations are 3-digit numbers. It is only possible to avoid sort keys for one digit length when numbers with different lengths should be sorted in increasing order.
 * 1000 and up use a single simple system instead of the current mixture which confusingly has one or more 9's (the required number of 9's can be unclear) inserted after the first digit.
 * The current description says to use capital E but nearly all articles use e so the suggestion is closer to practice.

If there is agreement then I will place the suggested system at top of this page and fix all current sort keys not following the system. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. Since all articles from 0 to 99 have already been written, and most new articles would probably be in the range 230 to 999, having the 3-digit numbers all having the actual number as key seems a good approach.  If this is done, could a bot be written to fix it:
 * Proposal: Each article of the form   (number), whether or not in Category:Integers should have its key in Category:Integers set as specified.
 * Bot to be run occasionally, or on demand, if a new integer article is created.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not following up on my suggestion. I don't know how much work such a bot would be or whether somebody will make it. I could implement my suggestion manually on existing articles next week. I guess new articles above 3 digits will be relatively rare so a bot will not have much to do if existing articles are fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

✅ Note the possible improvements to handling 0-9 below. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Historical years
These have got to be one of the least interesting and least relevant sections on WP. Quiz: What have the years 18 BC, 18 AD, 1918 and 2018 to do with the number 18? Answer: they happen to have an "18" in them. What a very uninteresting thing. This is nothing but an artefact of how we name years and predictable to the point of being tedious. These sections don't even kick in till 10. Why they kick in at all I can't fathom. Let's get rid of them. J IM ptalk·cont 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They would clearly belong at 18 (disambiguation); as 18 and 18 BC are written "18", and 1918 and 2018 are written "'18". Unless you want to write that, they belong at some article named "18".  And you're writing in the wrong place.  The comment would belong at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers or Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers), if anywhere.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's move the discussion. J IM ptalk·cont 08:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * moved J IM ptalk·cont 09:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Single-digit numbers
Well, I see the history here, and I still honestly do not understand why the single-digit positive numbers cannot just filter into the 1 through 9 bins based on their leftmost (i.e., only) digit just like all the positive numbers with more than one digit. From the point of view of a person visiting this category page for the first time, it makes no sense to have a bin labeled 0, the members of which have no 0s in them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nice to have them at the beginning. We could sort them under " ", maybe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

New numerical sorting
After a MediaWiki change this week (Village pump (technical)), all articles starting with a number are sorted numerically under a common "0-9" heading where "9" comes "10" and so on if there are no sort keys. I therefore suggest all integer articles simply remove the sort key and let MediaWiki handle it. The category is currently a mess due to sort keys designed for the old system with alphabetical sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sortkeys. All integers now sort in numerical order as expected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've "collapsed" the last sort key algorithm in the lead of this talk page. Other templates might be preferable, but I found one that isn't too bad.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

the number of greatest magnitude
In 12 (number), can somebody please elaborate a bit that sentence adding some examples? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 12 (number) says: "In English, twelve is the number of greatest magnitude that has just one syllable." It refers to the English name "twelve". No larger number has an English name with a single syllable when it's pronounced. For example, thir-teen has two syllables. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)