Here's a more modern (both in terms of markup and looks) attempt that also seems to work better with the rest of the new Wikipedia default skin -- 'Chucker 21:18, 2004 Jun 10 (UTC)'

I've shrunk it a little - better?

James F. (talk) 21:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Better. Are there any guidelines, however, on what units to preferably use on Wikipedia? I realize px is a bad choice in that it is fixed; em, however, doesn't work well together with all browser out there, no? -- Chucker 04:30, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Because the old design doesn't work together well with Monobook, I'm replacing it. This talk page gets to keep the previous design. -- Chucker 21:46, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Jiang removed the link with the note "we dont need it". Who is "we"? Why was this not discussed here first? Every section of articles has "edit" links, why shouldn't a box have one? Adding the link back and correcting it. -- Chucker 16:42, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

If we needed links for templates, then it should have been made part of the software. It is not necessary to have the link there since the template is still accessible without it. --Jiang 20:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eequor has, in the process of moving this around and changing the table syntax, also added the fictional D'ni numerals. Is it really a good idea to include such a fictional numeral system with all the others? Lupo 09:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in there. - Vague | Rant 02:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it doesn't belong here. —Michael Z. 2005-01-23 19:15 Z

Frankly, I was amused to find D'Ni there and it seems to fit in with a lot of Wikipedians' orientation towards Sci-Fi fiction, but I won't argue for it or against it other than to say I found it amusing.

But I did just add Binary, Octal, and Hexidecimal based on the facts that:

• They are real numeral systems, and
• The individual articles describes them as "numeral systems".

On these two bases, I think they "rate" inclusion here.

Atlant 21:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've re-added D'ni numerals, but with a '(fictional)' disclaimer. Is that suitable? I just think that someone interested in numeral systems might be interested in ones created by folks, in addition to those created by civilizations.

If there are enough fictional numeral systems out there, we could create a new section in the template for them. How's that suit everyone?

SFT 15:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's okay to include D'ni numerals, but I'd probably segregate them into a new sub-box entitled "Fictional systems" or "Artificial systems" or some such.

Atlant 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the D'ni as SF cruft, but I was reverted and pointed to this talk. Obviously we all agree that it doesn't belong in the same list as others. More importantly, it simply is not a part of the same series of articles, which this box is supposed to be about. I'm removing it again. There are other ways to link to D'ni - there is Numeral system, category:Numeration, we can even have a list of numeral systems. Zocky 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be all for segregating it into a different section of the box, if it weren't the only fictitious numeral system we're dealing with. (A one-item list doesn't seem very sensible.) However, I don't agree that the box must contain only "real-life" systems. There is no reason to assume that people looking at this box would not be interested in unique numeral systems in fiction.

I agree that too many kB of Wikipedia is taken up by the microscopic details of fiction franchises. I think the Myst articles themselves number about 500% too many. However, the numeral system is interesting and substantial enough to warrant its own article, and indeed to warrant the attention of passersby interested in numeral systems.

If you want to create a new section in the box for "Fictional systems" that contains (at this point) only D'ni, then that's fine. But I think it would be a disservice to folks interested in numeral systems to omit it completely. SFT 22:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it chokes me to have to say so, there are probably more people familiar with D'ni than with Babylonian numerals which we all agree should be on the list. DV8 2XL 22:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed to many articles about works of fiction and components thereof, and even created templates linking such articles together. But I think that including the D'ni numerals article in what is presumably supposed to be a serious series of articles about numeral systems isn't a very good idea. This series of articles should cover important and influential systems of numerals throughout history, helping to link the articles to show their evolution and use of these systems. I am also against creating a separate section in the template for fictional numeral systems—they don't add to the value of these articles as a series. Not only are they artifical constructions, but they are essentially unused, except for the fiction they were created for. Having them in the template is equivalent to someone adding articles about speculative "future histories" to a series of history articles. I agree with Zocky, just make an all-inclusive List of numeral systems with all the real ones, and a separate section for fictional ones. While I'm completely fine with the article D'ni numerals existing in Wikipedia as a whole, leave it out of this template. —siroχo 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does an article like numeral system which uses this template show so much empty space at the top? Oleg Alexandrov 05:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added real Arabic numerals (alphabetic Abjad), and so had to differentiate them from "Arabic" numerals. AnonMoos 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are several articles in Category:Positional numeral systems that do not use this template and are not listed in it. I'm weakly in favor of adding them all, but I can also see arguments against it. What do you people think? —Ilmari Karonen 11:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has responded, I went and did it. Feel free to correct my (pseudo-)Latin. The table is getting quite long, though, raising the issue of whether all these positional numeral systems need to be included at all. Perhaps the template should be split? Or does someone have better ideas? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu-Arabic" is more widely accepted (at least academically) and technically more correct. "Arabic numerals" is in fact a misnomer, which is no longer in use (except in colloquial usage.) If there are no objections, we must change both this template and the article to "Hindu-Arabic Numerals" deeptrivia (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will change it to Hindu-Arabic numerals in ten days. deeptrivia (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to also remove Indian numerals and any others that are part of the same system. Zocky 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the deeptrivia's position, then why are you unilaterally trying to implement a change which is basically the opposite? AnonMoos 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem is. We use the same format Name (Origin) for all Greek systems which are not the Greek system in this box, and what I did with Arabic systems was the same. As naming conventions say, use the name that's most commonly used to refer to the concept, and dissambiguate as necessary. Abjad numerals are not "Arabic numerals (Abjad)", they're "Abjad numerals", which happen to be Arabic. All of this has nothing to do with what deeptrivia and I agree should be done with this box in the future. Zocky 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that you seem to be heavily involved in the recent foofaraw over the Arabic numerals article, and that your over-scrupulous concern for ultra-"consistency" here seems to suspiciously dovetail with your ideological positions there. Furthermore, the template does not say "Arabic numerals (Abjad)", it says "Arabic (Abjad)". Please address your remarks to what the template actually says, not what it doesn't say. However, if you want to get into such details, then the Abjad is an Arabic system of numerals which is more genuinely Arabic than what are commonly referred to in English by the phrase "Arabic numerals" AnonMoos 03:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. deeptrivia (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job deeptrivia, except that the sub-list has vertical blank space above and below it, which adds unnecessarily to the height of the template (at least as it displays in my browser). Is there some technical means of getting around this? AnonMoos 14:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's an wierd looking half blank line between the sublist and the list. I tried a few things to remove it. Haven't succeeded yet, but will change it as soon as I figure out how to. deeptrivia (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used some heavy-handed raw HTML code to eliminate a lot of the unwanted vertical blank-space. It looks better in my browser, and I hope it looks better in other people's. AnonMoos 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of spelling out all those long words like "quadrosexagesimal" is questionable. If someone wants to know the fancy word for "Base 64" he can look at the article, right? It should be shortened with a table, like Template:Cyrillic alphabet navbox, and links to "2" "3" "4" "10" etc. Any thoughts? Ashibaka tock 03:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps even just a comma-separated list instead of a table. SFT | Talk 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains the tag Category:Numeration (without the first colon), but several pages using it are in sub-categories of Numeration (especially the category:Positional numeral systems), and should, I think, not go into this super-category. Do you all agree? If so, the procedure must be to ensure that all those articles that use this template and that really do belong to the Nuemration category get an explicit category tag, and then the tag should be removed from this template.--Niels Ø 00:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]