Talk:10,000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

As is done with the pages on 1000, 2000, ... 9000, this page will have a list of selected non-round numbers following, but here it will go through to 99999, because it is foreseen that fewer numbers in the 10001 - 99999 range will merit their own pages than is the case with 1001 - 9999. So properties are added to numbers listed here, or if the number is not already listed, then it is added. If a number has enough properties listed that it merits its own article, then the content is moved to its own article and formatted according to the template given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, and on this page a link to the new page is put. PrimeFan 23:15, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page have a comma in the title? (10,000 (number))

This issue has been discussed many times before and commalessness was the concensus, but I can't remember on what page this was discussed. PrimeFan 21:03, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer it with comma too. Why not revive the discussion? Would anybody object if I just move the page to the comma-ful one?--Sonjaaa 21:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
It's OK to revive the discussion. But don't make the move without a discussion first. (I will bring it up at project talk page.) The change needs to be discussed first because at least a dozen other pages would have to be changed to conform (such as 1729 (number). PrimeFan 20:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I added a mention of the comma version, plus the metric versions. Korky Day 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10000 Posts at TheForce.Net[edit]

In the TheForce.Net Forums, achieving 10,000 Posts makes you a god and elite user of that board. Hitting this special number will make you idolized and respected in the JC World.

I removed this because I don't quite believe it. "Idolized and respected"? Just for posting 10000 messages? Then another group that ought to be "idolized and respected" consists of Republican bloggers too chicken to enlist in the Army or Navy. PrimeFan 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Density of balanced primes[edit]

There are over 300 balanced primes with 5 digits in base 10, so it's not necessary to list them on this page. PrimeFan 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split into multiple articles proposal[edit]

maybe now its the time to split this into 20000 (number), 30000 (number), etc. Numerao 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early. The 90000 article would be very thin right now. Anton Mravcek 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section 'Selected 5-digit numbers (10001 - 99999)' doesn't really belong here. It should be a separate article.--Redaktor 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic[edit]

With Unicode encoding I'm not seeing the characters in Aramaic. For the other languages yes, but not this one. Are there unicode characters for Aramaic? If not, it will have to be given as a transliteration only. - Parsa (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need Aramaic Transliteration
This item is still open two years later ( as of Feb 2011))... According to some quick research using other Wikipedia articles, Aramaic script (font) is, apparently, not available for UTF-8 (only UTF-16).   If anyone knows the word, please edit the main article to provide the English/Latin transliteration of of the 'Aramaic' word.. (Note the word can , probably be rendered using the equivalent Unicode 'hebrew' letters.)--Libertas (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 10101 (number) "properties"[edit]

Yesterday Arthur Rubin has "Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro motivating with "Seems trivial" the line about 10101 (number) properties as follow:

  • 10101 – multiplying any two-digit number for 10101 the result will give a six digit number with the two given numerical digits repeated three times (example: 37*10101=373737)

It may seem trivial but I wonder who knows why this happens or knows anything about this particular number property.
I am posting a RFC on the talk page to discuss wether it should be the case to cancel this contibution alltogether.
Thanks.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NUMBER, and you've posted an "RFC" in a clearly inappropriate place. Try discussing at WT:NUMBER or WT:MATH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit of time[edit]

I am trying to find a word for equals 10,000 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.77.184 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "myriaannus"? Jimp 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or

How about "myriadon".

Requested move 25 June 2017[edit]

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: pages moved. Will perform the moves now. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin 02:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


10000 (number) → 10,000, 20000 (number) → 20,000, 30000 (number) → 30,000, 40000 (number) → 40,000, 50000 (number) → 50,000, 60000 (number) → 60,000, 70000 (number) → 70,000, 80000 (number) → 80,000, and 90000 (number) → 90,000, – (number) dab not needed for five digit numbers. Fish567 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MOS:DIGITS and for legibility and consistency, as long as we also move other five-digit integers such as 16807 (number). 10,000 currently redirects to disambiguation page 10000. Do we still want 10000 to be a dab? Certes (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This nonsense (why the auxiliary grouping symbol should be more prominent than the very important decimal separator?) is confusing for people from the rest of the world, where comma is a decimal separator. It is also against the accepted standards. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the removal of the (number) dab. Neutral on whether or not commas are used. Voortle (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pinging JFG and wbm1058 for awareness. — Andy W. (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – More readable, and confusion with years is unlikely. — JFG talk 22:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the parenthetical (number). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) is the applicable naming convention. If 4711 for the Eau de Cologne is out of the "several decades in the future" range, then all 5-digit numbers are too. I agree that adding a comma is problematic. Seems we've gotten by fine without them so far. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as originally proposed. The comma is almost always included in numbers of 10,000 or more, and aids readability. "Confusing for people from the rest of the world" is not in my opinion relevant, assuming this means people who speak other languages... I'm aware that French and German use a comma instead of a decimal . but this is the English Wikipedia, and the comma is standard usage across the English speaking world. 10000 should be a redirect to 10,000 not a dab page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: If this discussion closes as move, can we also boldly move other five-digit integers such as 16807 (number), or does anyone feel that this would need a further RM? Certes (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposed. But rather than then boldly move a great number of articles, discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates). Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've belatedly advertised this discussion there. There are seven further articles to be taken into consideration beyond the nine listed above. Certes (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa: @Certes: I say just move them. If people object, we can rethink. Nothing is irreversible if there's a strong objection, and Wikipedia is unlikely to be *irreparably harmed* by a bold move of several pages.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that there is no great harm in that approach. I would do it a little bit differently, but it's a chicken and egg situation. Article names and the naming conventions both need to change to reflect changed consensus. It don't matter a lot which happens first. Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 3 July 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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:10,000&oldid=1218933699"