Template talk:Infobox number

Creation
This template was created to help with the creation of new number articles.--Commander Keane 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm converting it into a proper template. Gonna take me a bit. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 04:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Unused?
Is there any special reason why this template has not been used yet, or can I add it to some articles on numbers ? Schutz 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Same as above, why is it unused?-Andrew c 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding this template to different languages
How do I add this and other templates to a different language wikipedia? Any help is appreciated. --Sarvagna 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd need to copy the code from the template page and create a corresponding template page at the other language wikipedia. Once you do that, you can add an interwiki link to this template's page. For example, go the template:fact and look at the left column for the interlanguage links. Each language has its own unique set of templates. (However, if you copy the code from this or any other template to another language wikipedia, make sure you translate the text. English doesn't help users of other language wikipedias). Hope this helps.-Andrew c 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will try to do it. --Sarvagna 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks
I've made it so the template will not provide a redlink to numbers that don't exist, I mean that don't have an article. It will still link to numbers that do have an article.  J kasd  22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman numerals
It is no longer necessary to add the roman parameter, roman numerals will automatically be calculated for every number.  J kasd  19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with binary too now.  J kasd  20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And octal.  J kasd  21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And hexadecimal too now. J kasd  22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And finally, duodecimal.  J kasd  23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, try to look the Japanese version. It shows Japanese numerals and counting rods, and it uses a unified function for binary, octal, duodecimal, hexadecimal, and vigesimal numerals. - T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiplicative navigation
I have some ideas how to build a useful navigation over natural numbers instead of dumb « 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 → » system. Absolute majority of interesting natural numbers are either relatively small primes or factorize to such relatively small primes with yet possible one factor which is not so small prime. So, numbers should be linked by divisibility to small numbers in both directions. How shall we do it?

First, I propose a navigation extension to Infobox number with fixed positions of ×2, ×3, ×5, ×7 multiples and also for n /2, n /3, n /5 fractions (if these are integers), as with a cell for other divisors obtained by division n by its prime factors. I designed several test pages with an arrangement as in the table above (see User:Incnis Mrsi/22 etc.), but it is possible other (transposed) arrangement of links, as in the table below.

For such primes that are not 2, 3, 5 or 7, I invented the second thing: Multiples. It should appeared like:

, but article on a specific number will only contain those rows to which it belongs itself. The use of this template in my user space is for demonstration only, I do not think that such rows as “multiples of 2” and “multiples of 5” will be so useful. On the other hand, bases (numbers at left column) are not limited to primes; any natural (e.g. 91) may be used if Wikipedia has interest in considerable number of its multiples. I was so bold to put samples (with some clue) to articles 91, 1001 and 1729. The “specific” column is not yet used, but may be used if we for some reason will want multiply the base to a coefficient bigger than 25.

Any comments? You are encouraged to edit my test pages (in my user space) as, of course, new Wikipedia templates if you can propose an improvement. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I find the template, at least in its present form, unhelpful and hard to read, and I'm not sure it adds any value to the number articles. I've reverted its use in 60 (number), where it certainly caused confusion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The new navigation device is in place on |this version of 60 (number), should anyone want to look at it. —Dominus (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose to such abundant navigation links in principle, to some particular elements, or to its position which I choose in 60? So, what was wrong in the table at itself: divisibility list, too large visual size, overcomplicated HTML, or maybe it bends reader's attention too? You should not just say that "it is bad". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was cryptic, confusing, unhelpful, visually distracting, too large, and conveyed less information than the text that it replaced. I actually support "abundant navigation links" in principle, but in this case I'm not sure that there is a need for the navigation links that the template provides. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think Infobox number is fine the way it is. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a special navbox, not in infobox itself. It is negotiable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not sure we need it, but I've invited the broader community at WikiProject Numbers to contribute to this discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Before trying to think up new navigation methods, it would be a good idea to consider how much they would actually be used. Given that most of these articles are stubs and many have long standing maintenance tags I'd say there is not much interest in them and trying to find new ways of navigating to them is a waste of time.--RDBury (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, such navigation could be placed to hundreds of articles (almost all are composite numbers), would actually be useful in many of them (there are 86 only 5-smooth numbers ≤ 1024 and yet several tens of low multiples of powers of 2, 3 and 5, which both are not navigable in the present system), and, last but not least, this system, even in its present state, allows something like search by divisibility (search for multiples to coefficients ≤ 25), in other words, it can show, multiples of what bases (e.g. 91) are uncommonly numerous in WP. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone actually wants to navigate the natural numbers that way. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I want. And I think that « 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 → » system is completely useless (do you navigate the natural numbers that way?), and successor/predecessor links are usually misleading for numbers beyond 256. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you're the only person that wants the feature, it's highly likely to get removed by people who prefer things the way they are. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman numerals are broken
The infobox outputs wrong roman numerals. 41-49 all have the XL stripped off, and 18 is missing it's X right here on the template page. I don't know how to fix it. :(

SkaryMonk (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the problem is with roman, I will submit an edit request there. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Factorization
I would like to change the factorization part to use the Module:Factorization. This will make it look slightly different, since LATEX can not be used (and I tried for hours) in Lua modules. Does anyone object? - Ypnypn (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * not using LaTex is actually a plus, since it reduces the number of unnecessary images used to display text. however, looking at your sandbox, I am a bit concerned that the default will be bold and large font? Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The module now defaults to the standard font, but can be set to be big, bold, and/or serif. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds expensive to run a trial factoring every time a page is rendered. For large integers like 9814072356 (number) we would probably need an option to specify the factorization with a parameter so trial factoring can be avoided. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The module was already designed not to factorize numbers over 1,000,000. returns just . -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and it looks like 9814072356 (number) doesn't use this template. it would be great if we could facilitate the use of this template for larger numbers, and for numbers less than 10, which also aren't using this template.  if this means adding options to override the default computation of factorizations, roman numerals, etc., then we should do that if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * okay, I made some minor changes so that 9814072356 (number) now uses this template. I also fixed the prev/next overflow problem for higher numbers.  the template was implicitly assuming that 20% of the width could be used for the previous and 20% of the width could be used for the next.  I fixed this by using a table, since divs will overflow.  I also add a check to make sure the numbers aren't too big before generating these links.  we could probably put a similar check to make sure the factorization code isn't called for numbers that are too big.  by the way, it looks like the cardinal calculator works for large numbers, but the ordinal calculator does not.  seems like an easy fix, since the cardinal requires more work. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

base conversions
I do not see where the base conversions are called into the template. It seems odd that senary is omitted, yet base 36, basically senary squared, is included. Senary is more notable and practical. Bcharles (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * they are called by template:infobox number/box. feel free to create senary to match template:Octal and others. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Frietjes! That seems to have worked simply and smoothly. I don't think that base 36 is notable enough to include in this box, but will leave it to others to edit, or to object. Bcharles (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mismatch in fonts and alignment

 * Factorization: 23 × 75
 * Factorization: $$ 2^3 \times 7^5 \, $$

The second form here has a mismatch in font size and in alignment. And it is what this template uses. If we ever adopt MathJax as the default, maybe that will solve the problem, but at this point it's not clear that that is likely to happen. Could this template be edited so that the first form is used? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * removed the y and y and added ×. let me know if this didn't resolve the issue. will see if there are any complaints. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding languages
The infobox only lists 16 languages, despite some number pages listing more internally. 1 lists 19. I added spaces for additional languages like this:  "lang17": {}, "lang17 symbol": {}, "lang18": {}, "lang18 symbol": {}, "lang19": {}, "lang19 symbol": {} First I could not save the template but got the error "Syntax error in JSON" though now it appears to have saved on this page. However, the infobox still only displays the first 16. How can the infobox be changed to display more languages? And is there a way to get it to display as many as are added automatically? Cheeselouise (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Infobox number calls Infobox number/box so you also have to implement new parameters there. Only modules and not template code can automatically detect parameters without coding each one. You would have to rewrite the whole template to be a module. Modules use a different language Lua that relatively few editors know and I don't recommend trying this. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Documentation
Any chance of complete documentation of the fields of this template? Filling in the TemplateData would be nice, but the description "unnecessary if less than 1000000" doesn't say what should be there if greater than 1000000. I also notice "prime =", which should also be computable by the LUA module if "factorization =" is computed, seems to have possible values "yes", "no", "p", or "nth". We (or the project) should decide which. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin, this infobox tries to automatically compute (a) the cardinal and ordinal using Module:ConvertNumeric, (b) the factorization using Module:Factorization, (c) the Roman numeral using Template:Roman, and (d) the various other base representations using Template:Binary, Template:Ternary, Template:Quaternary, Template:Quinary, Template:Senary, Template:Octal, Template:Duodecimal, Template:Hexadecimal, Template:Vigesimal, and Template:Base 36. each of the modules/templates has an upper limit on the largest number it can handle.  I am pretty sure the lowest upper limit is actually 1 billion, not 1 million.  for numbers bigger than that, you have to do the conversion manually and put it in the infobox.  I realize rather than responding to you here, I should try to put all this in the documentation (with more details), but I don't think I will have time for at least two days.  Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Module:Factorization could probably handle "prime =", as well. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, in fact, Module:Factorization returns "prime" if the number is prime, so we probably don't need a prime parameter in the infobox. but, if want redundant information, it could be automatically populated as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Range for large numbers
Infobox number/range for large numbers displays ← 0 101 102 ... The arrow links to Negative number.

Would 1|100 be more logical than 0, and what should the "←" link to: 0.1? Certes (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Certes, I added 100 as suggested. I don't really know the best solution for less than 1, but it's probably best to link to articles which use this infobox when possible.  Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . If the target of "←" should be an article that uses the infobox then 0 is probably the least bad answer.  Obviously it's not in the sequence, but it is its limit. Certes (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Certes, sounds reasonable, so now done. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Invalid links
If this infobox is used on the page for n, it automatically adds links to articles titled n-1 and n+1, which is fine if those happen to be articles about the corresponding numbers, but is not fine if the title belongs to a disambiguation page, an article about a year, or something else. There needs to be a way to control whether these links appear, or to override the article title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * R'n'B, do you have an example page? we might be able to address this in Template:Infobox number/link. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Example: −1, where the infobox incorrectly links to −2 (when it should link, if at all, to −2 (number)). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the logic is in /link, which links to n (number) for n≥0 and –n for n<0. (The articles for small integers are at 0 to 10 but n (number) redirects there.) Certes (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * R'n'B and Certes, should be fixed now (same logic for positive and negative numbers). Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Although in many cases it links redundantly via a redirect, unfortunately we still need the (number) suffix for those cases where the plain number is a dab (20) or a year article (151). Certes (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you fix a really dumb conspicuous typo in this infobox.
I've done more than a quarter million edits on Wikipedia, and created over 800 new articles. And this infobox is making me resent this infobox's existence. I saw a really dumb and really conspicuous typographical error near the beginning of an article. The prime factorization of 100 was asserted to be this:
 * 22× 52

Obviously, it should have been this instead:
 * 22 × 52

Wikipedia is supposed to be editable.

Wikipedia is supposed to be editable.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a fix in Module:Factorization/sandbox. This can be promoted to the main module if no one objects.  However, the testcases suggest that someone thinks there should not be a space before the product sign. Certes (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice the standard LaTeX format:

\begin{align} \text{binary: } & 5+3 \\ \text{unary: } & {+3} \\ \text{unary: } & 5+ \end{align} $$
 * Binary operation symbols (and binary relation symbols) have a certain amount of space to their left and right. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is this forum where someone said there should not be such a space? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Module talk:Factorization/testcases has no spaces. I didn't contribute to it.  I think the expression would look better with a space, but omitting one seems to be a point of view rather than a dumb error.  Certes (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The code and testcases were both made by Ypnypn who hasn't edited since 2015. The space is only omitted after an exponent. The precise position and size of an exponent in  depends on the browser. I guess the idea is that there is a space below the exponent but I don't like that look. We could make a thin space instead as a compromise but a normal space is fine by me:
 * 22× 3 × 5 – No space after exponent


 * 22&thinsp;× 3 × 5 – Thin space


 * 22 × 3 × 5 – Normal space


 * PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be no objection, I have implemented the module change. Certes (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Using a thin space or a normal space? Another possibility could be a hair space:
 * 22× 3 × 5 – No space after exponent


 * 22&hairsp;× 3 × 5 – Hair space


 * 22&thinsp;× 3 × 5 – Thin space


 * 22 × 3 × 5 – Normal space


 * —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate to have the same type of space before and after the ×, because the two operands are equally closely connected to their operator. We wouldn't write 2× 3 or 2 ×3.  The main counter-argument would be kerning, but the bottom of the exponent lies below the top of the multiplication symbol (at least on my screen).  I don't think the last example above looks at all wrong but, if we do want narrower spacing, we should probably be symmetrical, e.g. 22&thinsp;×&thinsp;3&thinsp;×&thinsp;5 (four thin spaces). Certes (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
200,000 to 900,000 are now created. Edit like this for 200,000 to 900,000: List of numbers — Integers and edit Template talk:Infobox number/range. 176.88.30.25 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC) 176.88.30.25 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Following a consensus to revert the article creations (leaving redirects), this change is no longer needed. Certes (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Improper em dash
This infobox seems to generate an improper em dash rather than an en dash. The example shows "List of numbers — Integers". Per MOS:DASH, that should be "List of numbers – Integers" instead. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the em dash in Template:Infobox number/range. I plan to change it if there is no objection. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping to a couple of relevant people to request a check of this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Em dash seems wrong, but what role does this punctuation play? It can't be to clarify that "number" here means "integer", because List of numbers includes pi, e, etc.  If it's just to separate list items then we usually use bullets: expand Integers for an example. Certes (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Would "List of numbers (integers)" or simply "Integers" be better? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BarrelProof, I made some changes to Template:Infobox number/range, hopefully that's better. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although I suggest lowercase as "List of numbers (integers)" rather than "List of numbers (Integers)". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Parentheses also make "integers" seem to explain what numbers are. If they're two equal alternatives, the more usual infobox treatment is List of numbersintegers. Certes (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, I changed it to use hlist. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responsiveness. Perhaps "integers" should be "Integers" with this punctuation? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Improper hyphen
Please see what the top of the infobox shows for 6 (or any number from −1 to 9). It is displaying and linking to -1 rather than −1, which is incorrect. It should use a minus sign, not a hyphen. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BarrelProof, I made some changes to Template:Infobox number/range, hopefully that's better. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Unicode parameter
There appear to be two: "Roman Unicode" and (plain) "Unicode". What on earth are they supposed to mean? Everything on a page encoded in UTF-8, as this is, is in Unicode; how could a reader learn anything from knowing that some Unicode character had some unspecified connection to the subject? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding scripts for converting to different cultural representations of numbers
I wish to write functions that will convert numbers to several different existing and ancient cultural representations of numbers such as Chinese, Japanese, Bengali. Arabic, ancient Babylonian, ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and more. Currently it seems like only Greek and Roman numerals have such scripts?

I have in the last weeks added these things manually for some number pages, but doing it for every number article would be extremely tiresome. Being a computer programmer I should have thought of scripting earlier, but the interface was not obvious to me then.

Is there any objection to that? I will of course do it very very carefully in order not to destroy anything. Vegan416 (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)