Talk:100,000

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 100,000 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled section

This needs to be moved back to 100000 (number) for consistency with other articles on integer > 999. This issue was already voted on a couple of years ago and the commaless format was agreed on. PrimeFan 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That seems easier and makes more sense than moving all other number articles. Kusma (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There should be an official policy about that. I will move it right now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

107777: the smallest number requiring 16 syllables in English?

This article claims that 107777 is the smallest number requiring 16 syllables in English. What about 77777? Ok I may be wrong but please bear with me: se-ven-ty-se-ven-thou-sand-se-ven-hun-dred-se-ven-ty-se-ven... Where's my (probably stupid) mistake? — Hillel 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, even if it was, it would not be the smallest number but the smallest natural number requiring 16 syllables in English... I'm gonna change that but my original question still stands. And I'm gonna add one: are these syllables count properties worth mentioning at all? — Hillel 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right that it should be "smallest natural number." As for syllable counts, it needs to be clarified which dialect of English is being used. That these numbers are listed in (sequence A002810 in the OEIS) and OEIS: A045736 is an argument that they're worthy of mention here. A counter-argument would be that neither sequence has the "core" keyword. PrimeFan 21:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, as OEIS lists 77777. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/* 107777: the smallest number requiring 16 syllables in English? */ Reply 27.109.113.159 (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

...following 99999 and preceding 100001.
Citation needed? CartoonistHenning (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

117067 is not a prime number

all vampire numbers cannot be prime numbers. 117607 is divisible by 167 and 701. 175.139.46.122 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 117607 the second time but correctly 117067 in the heading. The entry said:

117067 – first prime vampire number

117067 is a prime vampire number as that concept is defined in the linked article at vampire number#Variants. However, I can understand a reader can get confused. I have changed the link formatting of the entry to:

117067 – first prime vampire number

This hints that "prime vampire number" may be a whole concept and not just a vampire number which is prime (impossible as you say). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

124000 – number of Islamic prophets

Does this belong here? All other numbers are mathematically interesting, but not this one. 78.159.216.4 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved.(non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100000 (number) → 100,000 – Easier to read, also removes unnecessary (number) dab. Fish567 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support purely for the first part of the nom's argument. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:Lugnuts. — AjaxSmack 17:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is part of a long-standing consistent naming convention, where a bare number is about the AD year (123 is about AD 123) and integers are disambiguated as 123 (number) etc. We are in the process of moving pages to make 1 to 100 lead to the integers, following a detailed RM in which the main argument was that (for example) the year AD 77 is not the primary topic of the term 77. It is equally true that AD 100000 is not the primary topic of 100000, so in isolation this RM is a clear Support. However, it makes little sense to move this page whilst leaving 2147483647 (number) in place. It might be better to discuss more widely and to move all numbers above a certain threshold (3000?) at the same time and in a consistent manner. As a minor point, the comma is not a universal thousands separator, even in the English speaking world. 100000, although slightly harder to read, is the canonical representation. Certes (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. See the similar 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. PizzaLuvver (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Would also support standardizing all long numbers to include commas and exclude the unnecessary "(number)" qualifier. — JFG ^talk 21:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only if part of standardization. WikiProject Numbers needs to maintain the {{num}} template, and ad hoc moves make matters difficult for the project with little benefit to the encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"262144" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 262144. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

105.112.11.60 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different sections inside a section

Why are there different sections at #100,001 to 199,999, like #100,001 to 109,999? Shouldn't it be all in a single section? Viewer⁷¹⁹ ^Talk!/_Contribs! 10:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them, it does flow better this way, there is no harm in having one longer section than the rest, we happen to input more information in this range likely since we identify with them more as they are not as large as the rest (and because they start with 1, a simple number to grasp on the onset).

Thank you for mentioning it. Radlrb (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]