This page was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2018. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
These plans appear to make sense:
However, I want to know if anyone has opinions on what Wikipedia's next pool after the 500-million pool should be named, with choices including:
Any opinions?? Georgia guy 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, although this may cause several Wikipedians to lose their patience when waiting for a fresh, new pool. I like "Giga-article pool". Any ideas for language pools? -- Gray Porpoise 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone's been paying attention they'll notice there's a donating thing up the top with a bar and amount donated in dollars. This tops out at $1,500,000. So might I be the first to suggest Wikipedia:$1,500,000 pool? I think guesses should not be accepted once the total amount reaches $1,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiSlasher ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
The Eleventy-billion pool was deleted out of process a number of months ago, without discussion, after the most recent debate discussion about it had been a speedy keep. I undeleted it recently, and it was deleted again by editors who thought that
The deleters seem to have entirely missed the point of the article, and not to have noted the deletion request anywhere but on the pool page (I wonder -- does deletion remove a page from one's watchlist after an undeletion?)... At any rate, I hope to see a more thoughtful discussion of why we should delete 500+ edits to a community page if it is to disappear.
+sj + 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
# 11 June 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material) (Restore) # 03:32, 5 June 2007 Sj (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (511 revisions restored: Obvious consensus to keep, as per many AfD discussions. Existence of this page was part of reasoning for deleting billion/trillion pools. please don't use admin tools to circumvent community discussion.) # 16:48, 29 November 2006 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (Delete per previous consensus on pools; i.e., DON'T DO IT.)
I see we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (7th nomination). Have we had something make it to ten nominations for deletion yet? If not, I propose Wikipedia:10th xFD pool. (If we have, let me know, and I'll go cry in the corner.) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Above a schedule for future pools was created, back in 2006. At that time the article growth was exponential, so it made sense then to have pools for 5, 10, 20 million artciles etc. As the growth has changed to linear now I propose to have an other schedule:
I propose to
Any objections? HenkvD ( talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As we are close to reaching three and a half million, then by this proposal, a seven-million pool should be opened at that time. JIP | Talk 12:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just realised that there are ways of winning pools before reaching the milestone. If a pool has closed with only one entry, that entry wins by default. Also, if a pool has closed, and the time of the last entry (the entry whose prediction is the latest in time) comes to pass, that entry wins by default. JIP | Talk 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
How do people create pools? M'encarta ( talk) 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This pool should definitely be reopened. The 4 million pool closed at 3.5 mill. I suggest that the 5 mill pool closes at 4.5 mill. We're still years off it, and guesses could still go wild. its premature to close it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Then 4.2 million then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan to make the following pools:
m'encarta ( t) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How about making a second 5000th FA pool? The first one closed in 2009, and we have precedent for making two of the same type (there are two 5m art. pools). We can make this one close at 4500 FAs. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether Wikipedia should have a pool on whether one day English will no longer be the largest Wikipedia?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's established that Wikipedia is growing linearly and not exponentially after all, what are we going to do about future pools? There are already pools for six, seven, eight, nine and ten million. But after that, the next milestones are twenty and fifty million. Should we have pools for eleven, twelve, thirteen and so on million? JIP | Talk 21:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
When Wikipedia reaches 6,500,000 articles it will be time to start a thirteen-million pool. I think this will happen sometime in 2022. 99.101.56.68 ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2018. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
These plans appear to make sense:
However, I want to know if anyone has opinions on what Wikipedia's next pool after the 500-million pool should be named, with choices including:
Any opinions?? Georgia guy 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, although this may cause several Wikipedians to lose their patience when waiting for a fresh, new pool. I like "Giga-article pool". Any ideas for language pools? -- Gray Porpoise 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone's been paying attention they'll notice there's a donating thing up the top with a bar and amount donated in dollars. This tops out at $1,500,000. So might I be the first to suggest Wikipedia:$1,500,000 pool? I think guesses should not be accepted once the total amount reaches $1,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiSlasher ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
The Eleventy-billion pool was deleted out of process a number of months ago, without discussion, after the most recent debate discussion about it had been a speedy keep. I undeleted it recently, and it was deleted again by editors who thought that
The deleters seem to have entirely missed the point of the article, and not to have noted the deletion request anywhere but on the pool page (I wonder -- does deletion remove a page from one's watchlist after an undeletion?)... At any rate, I hope to see a more thoughtful discussion of why we should delete 500+ edits to a community page if it is to disappear.
+sj + 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
# 11 June 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material) (Restore) # 03:32, 5 June 2007 Sj (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (511 revisions restored: Obvious consensus to keep, as per many AfD discussions. Existence of this page was part of reasoning for deleting billion/trillion pools. please don't use admin tools to circumvent community discussion.) # 16:48, 29 November 2006 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool" (Delete per previous consensus on pools; i.e., DON'T DO IT.)
I see we have Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (7th nomination). Have we had something make it to ten nominations for deletion yet? If not, I propose Wikipedia:10th xFD pool. (If we have, let me know, and I'll go cry in the corner.) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Above a schedule for future pools was created, back in 2006. At that time the article growth was exponential, so it made sense then to have pools for 5, 10, 20 million artciles etc. As the growth has changed to linear now I propose to have an other schedule:
I propose to
Any objections? HenkvD ( talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As we are close to reaching three and a half million, then by this proposal, a seven-million pool should be opened at that time. JIP | Talk 12:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just realised that there are ways of winning pools before reaching the milestone. If a pool has closed with only one entry, that entry wins by default. Also, if a pool has closed, and the time of the last entry (the entry whose prediction is the latest in time) comes to pass, that entry wins by default. JIP | Talk 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
How do people create pools? M'encarta ( talk) 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This pool should definitely be reopened. The 4 million pool closed at 3.5 mill. I suggest that the 5 mill pool closes at 4.5 mill. We're still years off it, and guesses could still go wild. its premature to close it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Then 4.2 million then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan to make the following pools:
m'encarta ( t) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How about making a second 5000th FA pool? The first one closed in 2009, and we have precedent for making two of the same type (there are two 5m art. pools). We can make this one close at 4500 FAs. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether Wikipedia should have a pool on whether one day English will no longer be the largest Wikipedia?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's established that Wikipedia is growing linearly and not exponentially after all, what are we going to do about future pools? There are already pools for six, seven, eight, nine and ten million. But after that, the next milestones are twenty and fifty million. Should we have pools for eleven, twelve, thirteen and so on million? JIP | Talk 21:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
When Wikipedia reaches 6,500,000 articles it will be time to start a thirteen-million pool. I think this will happen sometime in 2022. 99.101.56.68 ( talk) 02:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)