View source for Talk:Duodecimal

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Mathematics |priority=low }}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(1095d)
|archive = Talk:Duodecimal/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|age=3|units=years|auto=yes}}

== Year 2022 in duodecimal ==

The current year represented in duodecimal (base 12) notation is written as 1206. Can anyone guess what the '6' at the end of the duodecimal representation of the current year stands for? [[Special:Contributions/23.150.224.60|23.150.224.60]] ([[User talk:23.150.224.60|talk]]) 16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

:It does not "stand for" anything. -- [[User:27 is the best number|27 is my favorite number]].  [[User talk:27 is the best number|You can ask me why here.]] 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
:it stands for "six" [[User:Brawlio|Brawlio]] ([[User talk:Brawlio|talk]]) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
::… which is the remainder of 2022/12. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 01:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

== Divisibility Tests from Duodecimal ==

{{copied|from=duodecimal|to=senary}} [[User:27 is the best number|27 is my favorite number]].  [[User talk:27 is the best number|You can ask me why here.]] 22:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

== "The importance of 12 has been attributed to the number of lunar cycles in a year..." ==

Ironically, 12 lunar cycles at 29.5 days apiece total only 354 days, just a '''dozen''' days short of a Leap Year. This is why we occasionally get 13 Full Moons in a year... [https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/13-full-moons-4-supermoons-and-1-blue-moon-2023-will-be-a-treat-for-night-sky-lovers/articleshow/96785682.cms including this year, 2023. (August gets a 2nd Full Moon, aka "Blue Moon".)] &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</sup> 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

:However, splitting the [[ecliptic]] into 12 equal parts (the signs of the [[zodiac]]) is a basic part of ancient Mesopotamian astronomy (cf. [[MUL.APIN]]), which was then incorporated into Greek astronomy and persists today. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 22:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

== Fractions comparison ==

> ''"... in the duodecimal system, {{sfrac|8}} is exact; {{sfrac|20}} and {{sfrac|500}} recur because they include 5 as a factor...."''<br>However, this comparison loads the dice, because 20<sub>d</sub> and 500<sub>d</sub> end in zeroes ''only in decimal''. (In duodecimal, they are respectively 18<sub>z</sub> and 358<sub>z</sub>, not exactly obvious breakpoints.)
Conversely, 20<sub>z</sub> and 500<sub>z</sub> are 24<sub>d</sub> and 720<sub>d</sub>. Decimal {{sfrac|24}} and {{sfrac|720}} are recurring numbers: respectively 0.041{{Overline|666}}... recurring (rounded to 0.0417), and 0.0013{{Overline|888}}... recurring (rounded to 0.00139). That's a wash between systems, if fairly measured. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</sup> 21:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

== Uncial ==

I've removed the references to "Uncial" (one mention in the lede, and a single sentence in 'Advocacy and "dozenalism"') with the following justification: 
* "Uncial" seems to chiefly refer to a script system, or else relations to an ounce. 
* Other than the single listed source, I wasn't able to find a single source using "Uncial" to mean "duodecimal"
* The listed source is highly dated (from 1945) and furthermore, the part that discusses the word "Uncial" is submitted not by an expert, but by an infantryman. One layperson using a word once 80 years ago in a letter to a niche publication does not a current [[WP:RS]] make. 
If others disagree with this change, feel free to discuss and revert, but this seemed to me to be an oversight. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

== Duodecimal Conversion Table ==

<s>I've reverted</s><ins>I had intended to revert</ins> an edit adding in a list of the numbers one through one hundred in base 12 and base 10<ins>, but someone seems to have beat me to it</ins>. I've done this for three reasons:
# Having duodecimal notation in a section prefaced by saying it's all in decimal notation is confusing. Note that this also means we may want to move the duodecimal addition and multiplication tables to a different section. 
# It's of limited utility. There are many free calculators, apps, and sites which can convert arbitrary numbers between decimal and duodecimal. A table dealing only with the first hundred integers doesn't add much. 
# It's redundant. In the very next section there are two tables that convert integers of several orders of magnitude, and also details how to convert from one system to the other. 
{{pb}}I figured I'd open the discussion here so if anyone disagrees, we can hash it out and keep improving the article. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 00:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) <ins>[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 00:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)</ins>

:@[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] I concur with [[Special:Diff/1199249029|your edit summary]] re: the tables being too wide. Do you think there's any value in keeping them at all? Given the abundance of conversion apps, is a table informative? The only thing it adds, in my opinion, is an at-a-glance notion of scale. (E.g., "Oh, so 100,000 base 10 is 49,A54 base 12.") I'm not sure that's worth the extensive real estate it takes up on the page. Thoughts? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:: I think they could be removed or radically shrunk, but I don't care enough to do it myself. Maybe skim back through the history to figure out who added them, and that person can explain their reasoning? –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Whoops, sorry about the misaimed ping. And a quick dig shows that they've been around since at least 2013, and was worked on by a bunch of folks. I'll try boldly removing it, and if anyone objects, they can revert and discuss here. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
::::I chopped some columns out. The narrower one seems okay enough to me. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Whoops! I managed to edit conflict and destroy your work. I've self-reverted; agreed that the new tables are better. I still don't see much point in having them, but that doesn't mean no other readers will find a use. Thanks for your work! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

== Changing examples of Germanic 11 and 12 words ==

There has been a slight edit war on whether the example language used for special Germanic 11 and 12 words should be English (eleven, twelve) or German (elf, zwölf). How could we possibly resolve this? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:CC47:CFD0:245D:7739|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:CC47:CFD0:245D:7739]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:CC47:CFD0:245D:7739|talk]]) 16:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

:Well, the first step is what you already did; go to the talk page. Thank you! My first thought is to use both, such as the following: 
:...such as {{lang|de|elf}} (eleven) and {{lang|de|zwölf}} (twelve)...
:Also note the <nowiki>{{lang}}</nowiki> template to show it's a foreign language. Is there a way to apply that to the Proto-Germanic as well? If possible, it'd be good to comply with [[WP:!EN]]. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't understand the goal of the change. This is an English encyclopedia and readers are going to be familiar with the English words "eleven" and "twelve", which makes it accessible and interesting for them to see how they relate to original Proto-Germanic words. By comparison, most will not be familiar with the German equivalents. In my opinion switching English to German makes this passage less relevant, harder to read, and less memorable. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::Well, why not use both English and German? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:D1E2:5217:CBA8:FB34|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:D1E2:5217:CBA8:FB34]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:D1E2:5217:CBA8:FB34|talk]]) 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] I think that, given that we're talking about another language, it is prudent to include it. After all, the words we're discussing are "elf" and "zwolf", not "eleven" and "twelve". If we use the English words, I could see some readers being confused about whether it's German or English which has ties with duodecimal. Put another way, Without the German words, we're asserting the existence but not providing any supporting data for non German speakers to verify. (I do not have the sources on that sentence, but they seem to be associated with the old German, not modern German.) 
:::IP, I appreciate the attempt to add English as well. I'm not thrilled with that exact construction; while a reasonable reader would infer the association, a particularly slow (or, more likely, tired) reader might not. I'd be more comfortable if we added "respectively" (so it reads: ...English equivalents ''eleven'' and ''twelve'', respectively ). I'd still prefer the parenthetical to save space, but we can hash out the details if we establish a consensus for inclusion at all. :) 
:::Also, thank you both for having this discussion; I've seen enough bad editing that it makes me happy when editors show up and talk things out, like colleagues over tea. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::::We're talking about "Germanic languages", of which the most obvious and familiar example for an English encyclopedia is.... English ([[English language]] starts with "English is a West Germanic language ..."). The English examples also have the advantage that (a) they are a bit closer to their proto-Germanic origins, and (b) they can be more obviously related to "one left" and "two left" mentioned in the article. Throwing in the German words just seems like gratuitous and largely irrelevant trivia here. If we insist on including German, why not also Dutch, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Swedish, Norwegian, or Faroese? I don't think there is a consensus (or any good reason) for adding the German words, and I intend to take them back out when I get a chance. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 02:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Huh. I always thought of English as a bastard language. I've learned something today. You make good points; I now support using English only. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would support using German only, however. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|talk]]) 00:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The words we use most, including counting-numbers (and about half the words of this sentence), are nearly all Germanic; since 1066 we have added a big load of words from French and Latin – not counting the trickle of loanwords that every language gets. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like the German examples better because:
:::::# I don’t like using English as an example of a particular thing at all.
:::::# I like examples in foreign languages better.
:::::Can we change the examples to be German only and keep it at that? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|talk]]) 00:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::English first, others in a footnote.  The English words show the roots most transparently, and the roots are the relevant thing in context. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The article currently uses German first and puts others (including English) in a footnote. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:8083:AAB1:FA58:1588|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:8083:AAB1:FA58:1588]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:8083:AAB1:FA58:1588|talk]]) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I reverted back to the English version. I'm not sure how to footnote, so have not risked breaking things by trying. Good catch, IP! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I honestly think it's quite dumb to use the Wikipedia language as an example for any given topic, and I think we need to emphasize other languages with the examples, which is why I keep reverting to the German version. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710|talk]]) 14:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Could you give us a hint of why you think it dumb?  Does “language” imply “foreign language”? [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Stop trying to replace the English words with German. It is worse for readers and you haven't given a good reason, let alone established consensus, for the change. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Tell this persistent editor to read [[Germanic languages]]. They seem to be confusing that term with [[German language]]. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How about we compromise and just use no examples at all? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710|talk]]) 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm hesitate to accept this, just because an example clears up what we mean by "special words". Without an example, it sounds like they have special meaning, but the example illustrates that it's just a different ''form'' for the word. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 15:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Using no examples also seems worse to me. The point here is to connect something readers know (the English words "eleven" and "twelve") with something they didn't know (these are Germanic-origin words which come from "one left" and "two left"), in the service of briefly giving an example of language(s) that have non-standard words for 11 and 12. {{pb}} Your insistence against using English as an example in the English language Wikipedia seems arbitrary and unreasonable to me. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Let's try to stick with using the German examples only. Sounds good? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|talk]]) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, it doesn't. Let's stick with English examples only. Please don't make that change again until and unless you get consensus for it. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::How would you think about compromising and using both? [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|talk]]) 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would be against it. See the discussion in this section for reasoning. Why do you insist on including German? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Because I think we need to pay more attention to foreign languages with the examples. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991|talk]]) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Okay. Per [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:ONUS]], it's up to you to demonstrate and convince other editors that, 1) English alone is insufficient, and 2) that attention to a foreign language (as opposed to merely a Germanic language) is appropriate. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::In many Wikipedia articles, I agree it would be helpful to aim for a more international and cross-cultural set of examples and topics.
:::::::::::::::But in any specific case, you have to think about the ''purpose'' of the example in context, and how it connects readers to the topic. You haven't yet given any reason why a German example would do a better job illuminating [[duodecimal]] number systems than an English example, nor have you addressed the several reasons why other editors claim it would do a worse job. You haven't explained why having multiple examples or no examples (your supposed "compromise" solutions) would be an improvement.
:::::::::::::::If you want to make meaningful contributions to this or other Wikipedia articles I would urge you to give up on this dispute and go do some book research. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This is not exactly a language article. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You have already been told no on that. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::By the way, if you have an ever-changing IP address, you may find it helpful to create an account. (See [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?]]) –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:I have now changed the examples into a table, as well as adding Dutch and Swedish. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912]] ([[User talk:2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912|talk]]) 00:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::This is unhelpful and distracting to readers. We're not here to give a detailed analysis of number words or an exhaustive cross-linguistic comparison. We're talking about the mathematics of duodecimal number system(s) here, and mentioning Germanic languages merits no more than a brief aside. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::As a compromise, I think it's unhelpful but I won't complain if you put a couple of other examples in a footnote. Skip the table though. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::If you want you can write a new article called [[Germanic number words]] or similar, where a suitably expanded version of this table would be appropriate. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 01:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I imagine that such an article would be absorbed into [[Indo-European number words]], either as a table or in a format like that of ''Buck's Synonyms''. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:I have now added a page with a larger version of the table, as a subpage of my user page: [[User:TheCool1Z/Germanic duodecimal number words|Germanic duodecimal number words]] [[User:TheCool1Z|TheCool1Z]] ([[User talk:TheCool1Z|talk]]) 01:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

== Symbols for Ten and Eleven ==

@[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] recently replaced the transformation template with the unicode version. @[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] reverted, citing that the characters don't display. I feel that, because the infobox references the unicode, the unicode should be used. Copying and pasting the rotated 2 or 3 only yields the standard 2 or 3, which could cause some confusion. I also see Jacobolus' point that it may not display properly. (It displays fine on my desktop, but not on my mobile.) If we do keep the unicode versions, it may be worth adding the same warning as on [[List of numeral systems]] that it uses uncommon unicode. If consensus is instead to stick to the transformation template, I suggest we remove the displayed unicode in the infobox. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:The unicode is directly included in the infobox (and again separately in the article body!), as "U+218A ↊ TURNED DIGIT TWO" etc., which is fine. What we ''shouldn't'' do is put giant missing glyph symbols in the middle of our pages, since the goal is to communicate the appearance of these symbols to readers. If the infobox isn't going to have legible symbols it should be removed altogether. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, I'd missed that. I could see that; Leave the unicode in the body (in the description you cited), and have the rotated version at the top to ensure it displays. It's a shame <nowiki><math></nowiki> doesn't seem to recognize these symbols; that would be an easier and more standardized solution. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Aside: 1/3 is not a "precomposed fraction". [[MOS:FRAC]] is talking about Unicode symbols such as ⅓, which are discouraged whenever on a page also involving a wider variety of fractions because these will look inconsistent. (Even though they are better looking and more appropriately sized than the results of the {{t|frac}} or {{t|sfrac}} templates, {{frac|1|3}}, {{sfrac|1|3}}, consistency was considered more important than good typography.) The MOS has no problem with inline fractions using full-height numerals and an ordinary / separator.  –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Removal of sections citing only the Dozneal Society of America ==

The sections [[Duodecimal#Duodecimal numbers|Duodecimal numbers]] and [[Duodecimal#Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature (SDN)|Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature (SDN)]] don't seem to be useful. I think we should just remove them. While cited, they're cited to an advocacy group, and show no evidence of common usage or notability. Knowing what "egro-bi-mo" means seems kind of like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or what slang for narrow-gauge rail is used only by the Melbourne Amateur Rail Club; both niche and esoteric to the point of uselessness. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 06:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:As I have heard no objections, I have removed the two sections in question. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

== Decimal or Humphrey notation ==

An IP editor has recently tried to update a decimal to the Humphrey notation. However, elsewhere in the article (e.g., the lede, [[Duodecimal#Duodecimal numbers|here]], [[Duodecimal#Fractions and irrational numbers|here]]) we use decimal notation. There's obviously an inconsistency here. I suggest we use decimal notation; it is universally understood by readers, while Humphrey notation is unfamiliar for most, and only mentioned briefly in [[Duodecimal#Base notation]] as an "other proposed [method]". That same section notes, {{tq|The most common method used in mainstream mathematics sources comparing various number bases uses a subscript "10" or "12"}}. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 06:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:Even the links that you cite show the character separating the radix from the mantissa as a semi-colon in all the tables. "0;1"  is "zero and one twelth" in dozenal. Look at the 4th column of the "Duodecimal_Numbers" table. Look at the block quote in the "Conversion tables to and from decimal" (12,345;6). This is the format throughout the rest of the article. CTRL+F and look for a ;. See how many are highlighted throughout the article. 
:While the lede does use ".8333..." perhaps this error helps understanding since the Humphrey Point isn't discussed until later in the article.
:The 2 decimal periods that I changed are in the duodecimal column of a table. These should be semi-colons like they are in each other table and block quote in the article. [[Special:Contributions/2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6|2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6]] ([[User talk:2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6|2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6]] ([[User talk:2601:189:427F:D280:ECCA:5D6E:98B9:D9F6|talk]]) 07:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::Ah, thank you. I'd somehow missed in the diff viewer that it was part of a larger table with similar notation. I've self-reverted to keep that section internally consistent, as you made it. Thank you for taking the time to come to the TP and explain to me what I'd missed; I feel silly right now! 
::I do maintain, however, that we should change all the Humphrey notation to the style used in the lede; per the Base notation section, the mainstream way is to use a dot as the radix, and we should follow the mainstream consensus. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 09:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::The US and UK are the rare exceptions that use a period as the radix separator; most of the world uses a comma.
:::Using '''decimal''' notation for ''non-decimal'' numbers is dumb. Would you suggest vandalizing the hexadecimal page and eliminating the '''<u>0x</u>''' notation because that's not how '''decimal''' numbers are written?
:::The article page itself states that there is no wide-spread consensus on how numerical representations are formatted: preceding *, semi-colon, various characters for dek and el, etc. I just stuck with the consistent neutral voice that Wikipedia demands (and the one that's easiest to type) and ran with it.
:::<q>The most common method used in mainstream mathematics sources comparing various number bases uses a subscript "10" or "12"</q>.  The problem with positional notation is that it presumes you know the base. Later in the article in the Fractional section the editor clarifies that:
:::* {{sfrac|14}} = 0;09 (this is one sixteenth, {{sfrac|12}} is one fourteenth)
:::because that section is representing dozenal numerals but in simple "mainstream" decimal notation.
:::earlier in the article:
::::<small>(duodecimal)</small> 10,000 + 2,000 + 300 + 40 + 5 + 0;6 <br> = <small>(decimal)</small> 20,736 + 3,456 + 432 + 48 + 5 + 0.5
:::Are the parenthetical clarifications excessively verbose? Is the base communicated more concisely with the difference in 0;6 and 0.5? [[Special:Contributions/2601:189:427F:D280:EDC1:3900:1778:DA87|2601:189:427F:D280:EDC1:3900:1778:DA87]] ([[User talk:2601:189:427F:D280:EDC1:3900:1778:DA87|talk]]) 16:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The US and UK are the rare exceptions that use a period as the radix separator; most of the world uses a comma.}} Agreed. However, as the article uses the period already, per [[MOS:RETAIN]] we shouldn't switch to a comma without good reason. Do you have sources showing the semicolon being used extensively for duodecimal? 
::::As for the rest, I prefer the subscript base system, when it's not already obvious (e.g., in a table with a column labeled "duodecimal". The talk about the hexidecimal page is [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. We need to follow what the preponderance of reliable sources say and do. Which, per the article, is using the dot radix with, if needed, a subscript notation.
::::To illustrate my point, I searched the first three pages of Google Scholar results for "duodecimal" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=duodecimal&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47 (here)], and after discounting the results which did not display any fractions, those which are not [[WP:RS]], and those that were published before 1950, I found that two used the dot as a radix separator (from academic journals: [https://www.ijcst.org/Volume3/Issue1/p2_3_1.pdf 1], [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shahid-Latif-7/publication/258493858_Novel_Approach_to_the_Learning_of_Various_Number_Systems/links/5ad8421c0f7e9b28593ad4fe/Novel-Approach-to-the-Learning-of-Various-Number-Systems.pdf 2]), and one used the colon ([http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk/forumstuff/aitken.pdf here], published 1962 by the dozenal society) The only one I found that used the semicolon ([https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/329dfc39-f2b7-49fa-a2a8-f7b398cdb437/content here]) seems to be an undergraduate thesis. I expect that if I kept looking, I'd continue to find that all contemporary, academic usage uses the dot. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Noting that I've converted the article to use point notation, rather than Humphreys notation. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

== Most practical & logical name to replace duodecimal. ==

Duodecimal is just a name using another compound word of ten and two. Decimal is the name given to base twelve simply by using the Latin word of one tenth (⅒), "decima" and not from Latin for ten or "decem".

The Latin word for one twelfth (¹/¹²), is "uncia" and is a direct analogue for a base twelve system, thus "uncial".

Thus can be seen as more appropriate and has been used several times previously in a 19th century in a Latin English dictionary, by a US WWII army man responsible for packing suppliers to US troops using base twelve quantities and in a letter to the USA Duodecimal Society, and then unaware of these previous uses, by me years later.

That this is appropriate, it is cogent to inform you that the English words "inch" and "ounce" both are derived from "uncia". There were twelve inches in a foot and twelve ounces to a pound weight before it became 16 ounces to a pound.

There is a huge lack of knowledge in all academic texts of mathematics regarding Roman mathematics simply because the initial introduction of Roman written numerals instantly was assumed the Romans couldn't do ANY calculations. Tell that to the builders of aqueducts, bridge builders, dome architects, tunnellers starting at both ends to meet in the middle. Were you aware the Romans had only pone decimal fraction, but over two dozen base twelve fractions. Did you know the Roman abacus was a base ten place value system and they had bronze pocket abacuses about the size of some of today's largest mobile phones. [[User:Ruthe|Ruthe]] ([[User talk:Ruthe|talk]]) 18:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:We call it what the preponderance of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] call it. We're not permitted to decide what it should be called; that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]. If you believe uncial is more commonly used, you may present evidence to that effect. (E.g., ngrams showing more use of uncial than duodecimal.) As for the rest of your message, please be reminded that Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTAFORUM]]. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
:I'd recommend discussing Roman numerals and calculations at [[Roman numerals]], [[Counting board]], [[Abacus]], or [[History of mathematics#Roman]], or the like, if you have recommendations for improving our coverage of the subject. I can find only a couple of sources using the name "uncial" to mean base twelve counting. Perhaps it would be a better name, but Wikipedia's policy is to [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names|Use commonly recognizable names]], of which the most common as far as I can tell is "duodecimal". –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 20:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
::If there is documented use I think mentioning that "uncial" and the reason for it is ok. Don't change the name of the article however. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
:::It's only worth mentioning alternative names when there is non-trivial existing usage (in this article, we mention "base twelve" and "dozenal" as attested alternatives). One or two sources making up a pet name for something is not sufficient evidence to put it into Wikipedia articles. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)