Talk:20 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Numbers  
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


Just a quick explanation of what I have done here. The headings for 22 to 29 is so that the actual number pages can have redirects to a defined point in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewKepert (talkcontribs) 06:36, 10 November 2003

The only problem with this, AndrewKepert, is that such a redirect doesn't actually work: the URL used by the browser is not changed by the redirect, and so contains no "#..." element. In other words, it still only points to the top, which is rather confusing if you follow a link to, say, twenty-nine. Perhaps it would be better to also have a heading for twenty itself, below a line explaining which numbers this page (currently) covers. This would make it clearer why the user had been redirected; it would also add an entry for twenty itself in the table of contents [if enabled], and move this into clearer view. (it frequently annoys me that these contents boxes don't appear until the first explicit heading, which can be a long way down the page) Obviously, this policy would then have to be applied to the other number articles that are in this form.
- IMSoP 22:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
(see also my more general comment on Talk:List of numbers)
I changed the formatting a bit, maybe it's easier to read now. Feel free to modify it.
BTW I was wondering why Special:Whatlinkshere/Twenty didn't show all the twenty-... redirects. Must be the anchors.
--User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talkcontribs) 22:48, 7 December 2003‎
Certainly makes it clearer what's covered if you have the TOC turned on. I'm not sure whether placing the other numbers at a lower level of hierarchy makes sense, though, and it needs a proper introduction at the very top. I was holding back from fiddling until a consistent design had been agreed on, as it will also need to be applied at similar pages such as Thirty, Hundred and so forth. In fact, perhaps we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers template, since the layout of the information on each number is also somewhat variable at present... - IMSoP 23:14, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes I know that it only half-worked -- it was a bit of an experiment that I left in place to draw attention to a problem that could either be fixed by a more creative solution in the current wiki engine, or by tweaking the wiki engine to handle in the obvious way. My workaround solution (aka kludge) to fix the other half was to create links like Twenty-eight#Twenty-eight or more probably Twenty-eight which currently work and degrade gracefully once a page for twenty-eight is created. I think the page in its current form is good. However, since I did the big rearrangement it has attracted interest and the sections have grown to the point where they could be split off. (This was partly my fault for raising "thirty-eight" as being "the first boring number" ... another story.) -- AndrewKepert 02:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the meantime (before reading above explanation), I had fixed the remaining redirects. I had preferred to see Whatlinkshere working. I suppose the anchor part still works.
Indeed, it would be nice to have a template. To some extent I followed fourteen. I spent some time building links from the year pages, even if the current format could probably also be improved. BTW 20 would be the part of twenty (currently 20-29) to spin-off, but the current pape is still of readable size. -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talkcontribs) 06:44, 9 December 2003


Under mathematics, this article says "21 is the total number of digits on the human body". The disambiguation page for Digit says digits can be fingers and toes. Shouldn't this article say there are 20 digits on the human body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2006‎

Age 20[edit]

Deleted this section. The statement that one is officially an adult at age 20 is incorrect in many, if not most jurisdictions. The term adult in an legal contexct may have several meanings, but more common ages of majority are 18 or 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsg (talkcontribs) 16:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

20 in sports[edit]

Do we really the sports stars who wear the number 20? Where does it stop? They should either all be removed, or at least trimmed to only the particularly noteworthy personalities. Psym (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Verification Requested[edit]

When Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address "four score" (meaning 20 years), it suddenly clicked to me that four scores, as in the old roman counting system where each four vertical slashes with a horizontal slash thru the four (a score?) was a count of five. Is that a correct interpretation of a score? -- (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In currency[edit]

I've deleted this section. It had mentioned the UK ₤20 and US $20 bills and whose portrait was on them. Why only these two. How about euros, NZ dollars, Canadian dollars, etc.? How about coins 20¢, 20p, etc.? It might be interesting, though, to note that 20 is a common denomination for currencies in general (though no Canadian or US 20¢ pieces exist) and that there used to be 20 shillings to the pound. JIMp talk·cont 03:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No disambiguation page?[edit]

I had removed the Music section which, rather than dealing with the number twenty (the topic of this page), was a list of musical things with "twenty" or "20" in their names. It seemed to me that this kind of thing belongs at a disambiguation page. That's what we usually do with off-topic stuff with a related name. M0rphzone, however, reverted this stating "there is no other disambiguation page; this is it; see talk and the other number articles". Well, there is a disambiguation page but if there weren't, there should be. As for the other number articles, there are disambiguation pages for many of them too. Even if these disambiguation pages didn't exist, it wouldn't follow that they shouldn't. Disambiguation belongs on disambiguation pages. These number pages should be about numbers. Anyway, I came to talk as M0rphzone suggested and there was nothing here to justify his reverting me. JIMp talk·cont 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Really. You think I would just revert without checking? The fact that it was so hard to find—maybe that tells you something? If there is a dabpage, then why is it not linked in the dab? Why does the dablink redirect here? Why did you not properly update the links after moving the page? There're only 4 links that link to 20 (disambiguation). Next time fix them and clean up after your edits. Do you expect people to clean up after you? - M0rphzone (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I don't expect people to clean up after me. If I missed something, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for assuming that 20 (disambiguation) would be easy to find. JIMp talk·cont 01:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"It appears that"[edit]

The claim that <quote>20 is the only number with more than one digit that can be written from base 2 to base 20 using only the digits 0 to 9</quote> is sourced to a website where this assertion is moderated by an <quote>"It appears that"</quote>. Shouldn't we do same here? elpincha (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Number 20 in percent encoding / URL encoding[edit]

I want to add this

*In [[Percent-encoding#Character_data|percent-encoding]], %20 represents the punctuatcion [[Space (punctuation)|space]] in URL encoding

under the "In science" section. Another user disagrees and argues that is it not helpful and that the addition is not related to the "number 20". I argued that there are a couple of entries in this article that is not the "number 20" in a strict sense, but add value to the article none the less and that linking to percent encoding may help some readers find what they are looking for. Does anyone else want to give input? --Bensin (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is really not a twenty, it is a two-zero. Even though I know this, it is percent-twenty to me when I see it. To me it should be in the article but perhaps create a new heading section for "Things that look like 20 but aren't"--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Retired jersey numbers[edit]

Per WP:PRESERVE, here is the list of retired #20 jersey numbers and racecars that were mentioned in the article:

This material may be of interest for a future List of retired numbers in sports article. — JFG talk 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bingo names -[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


  • The Roman version was the first designation of the A380, symbolising its double decks.

In the linked article I see no evidence that the XX in "A3XX" was anything but a placeholder. Even if the assertion here is true, it's non-notable in my humble opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That claim clearly has nothing to do with the number 20. I've boldly removed it. Certes (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


I've been thinking through inclusion criteria for entries in articles about numbers — my evolving thoughts are expressed here: User:Sphilbrick/Essay_regarding_inclusion_criteria_for_integer_articles. A few days ago, the article had zero references to songs or albums with "20" in the title. I started adding them but there are quite a few, and while some more well known than others, is not immediately obvious where to draw the line. (Obviously, if some unknown garage band writes a song with 20 in the title, and it doesn't get covered in a reliable source that's not going to be included.) I started including the items as a list, but it became quickly apparent that the complete list was going to take up a lot of the vertical space of the article. I decided to try including the entries as a table, to make the presentation more compact. The edit I am making at this time incorporates that table. I'm open to discussion about the best way to present the material. One possibility is that songs or albums with "20" in the title deserve inclusion only if the album song or artist are notable. My current list is broader than that, including artists who do not have their own article but for whom there is a reliable source confirming the existence of the song or album.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The dab 20 holds the list of songs etc. which might be referred to as "20". I would leave them off the number page unless they have a special significance in describing an aspect of the number 20. Certes (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Certes, I considered that. As a minor note, the dab page contains only one song, and I found 28, but obviously, that can be cured by adding entries to the dab page. The challenge is that entries on a dab page ought to link to notable entries. it's my opinion that not every item in a numbers article needs to be standalone notable although it does need to be referenced. If we make the stronger claim that an item should only be listed if it is notable in its own right, then it would work to include those items on the dab page.
Yet another option is to require that either the song, or album or artist has to be notable, but a song could be listed if the artist is notable even if the song doesn't have a standalone article.
This would mean that the song "20" by Joe Cocker[1] could be included because Joe Cocker is notable, even though we don't have a separate article for that particular song. I think that could be included in the dab page, but that might need a little research (or maybe you know off the top of your head). That approach would mean that "20" by Joe Cocker would be included on the dab page, but "20" by Ebbo Kraan[2] would appear nowhere.
Frankly, I don't think any of the options jump out at me is the obvious right answer, which is why we are having this conversation. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:DABMENTION, list entries have a lower notability hurdle than articles. A song described in the article for a notable album or singer may be included if it would provide value to the reader. That's "may" rather than "must", and we might interpret "value" as having some detail beyond a mere appearance in a track listing. Certes (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ 20 - Joe Cocker | Song Info | AllMusic, retrieved 2020-08-17
  2. ^ 20 - Ebbo Kraan | Song Info | AllMusic, retrieved 2020-08-17