Jump to content

Talk:Roman numerals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Subject heading change

[edit]

The original heading (Standard form) goes much better with the wording of the previous section - and also with our philosophy of "describing" rather than "mandating" a "usual" form that is accepted and understood (more or less) everywhere. Under the following heading we group all "variant" forms that "differ from the standard described above" - with a minimum of comment - just mentioning that they have "occurred" (been used at some time or period in a document or inscription). This kind of clarity is incompatible with any kind of attempt to tie down the inconsistencies of historical usage to a set of "rules" - which is why we ended up as we did. Very relieved that the attempt to go back to these was so promptly reverted by its proposer! Well done by the way. Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were wondering, I was creating a permalink for the rules content, since I've made further adjustments & improvements since the controversy. I had no intention of stirring up any more trouble than I have already. As for the section title (Standard form vs Roman numeric system), I just wanted to try out an alternative, but I can see where your use of "Standard form" fits with the existing content, such as Other forms. Another reason is that I wanted to use that title for my own content, but that's not a conflict, given the consensus. As I said above, I never would've been so stubborn if you had just pointed out that the rules are too technical for this article. Anyway, hopefully my recent edits were not a big deal. Xcalibur (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

[edit]

I'm new so I can't edit but there is a spelling error where the page says 'the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) mean "18 century"' instead of the Spanish siglo XVIII (not XVIII siglo) meaning "18 century".

If someone could edit this that would be great Taftaloka (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mean" is correct (to take a simpler construction "for example, A means B") but yes, a construction with "meaning" would be correct too ("for example, A, meaning B" or "for example, A (meaning B)"). I've switched to "for". NebY (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although it doesn't really matter, I was also wondering about why the article does not use the Unicode Roman Numerals and instead opts for keyboard characters. (for exampleⅩⅧ instead of Latin characters XVIII) Taftaloka (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Roman numerals#Unicode and Talk:Roman numerals/Archive 10#Using Unicode points for numerals?. NebY (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed crossword puzzle use

[edit]
  • The notation ID for 499 or IM for 999 is used in crossword puzzles.

I removed this bit, because (a) it is not clear what it means. Clues give words, not numbers, so on the face of it, this is backwards; (b) crossword setters play games with language, so unless extremely clear and significant these games do not belong here. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing some crossword puzzle had the clue "499" and the answer was "ID", and same for IM. However I think there has to be a link to the crossword puzzle as a reference for this information to stay. It is mildly interesting in that, along with the Excel thing, shows how common the "anything subtracts" idea is in modern times. Spitzak (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sequences

[edit]

Opening a question regarding linking Roman Numerals with sequences, and the Wikipedia article Sequences. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, or where, is your question? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for roman numerals

[edit]

Please see MCM and read right to left

MCM

M1100

100 or -100

Please indicate such ambiguities SOMEwherein the page

[1]

Thank you for listening!
[edit]
 Not done for now: You'll still need reliable sources to back up that claim. I'm sure you can find one somewhere. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ no sources