Wikipedia talk:Three-millionth topic pool

Q

"Topic" or "article"? --Dweller (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either. Major kudos for predicting the exact name of the 3 millionth article. Medium kudos for describing it fairly precisely. Minor kudos for guessing the general type of thing ("small village") etc. Stevage 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Periwinkle Controversy?

I thought I might confess - I saw the redlink and still was about .5 seconds away from clicking it. It looked interesting. Andyo2000 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that was my one—with it own talk page section! :D --can dle •wicke 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening

I reopened it - someone closed it at 15 July. But there's no need to close a topic-guessing pool - that only applies for date-guessing pools. Stevage 05:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why 3,000,000?

The only reason that people place significance to any number such as 3000000 is because such numbers are n*(a power of ten) where ten is the base, which brings up the question, why 10? Maybe because humans have ten fingers... You may be asking what my point is. For one thing, 3,000,000 in base 9 is 5572203. Not that interesting anymore, is it? Well I just want an editor to say this verbatim: "We, as a community of Wikipedia editors, are placing significance on the Three-millionth article solely because humans have ten fingers." 128.194.39.41 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor = one who edits, not necessarily an administrator. And you just said it verbatim. You editor. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have that much time on your hands (pun intended), there is an encyclopedia to write. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not empowered to speak for the community, but speaking for myself, I place significance on the Three-millionth article solely because humans have ten fingers.--SPhilbrick T 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Ann Boleyn doesn't edit Wikipedia. Just think of the edit wars we could have over notable numbers in base 11. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winner

I think User:Cryptic C62 came closest, it was an obscure actress. Lampman (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]