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)

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

What I think would be useful is a category 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)

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)

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)

Sort key

See my comments at . – ABCD 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)