Wikipedia talk:Size comparisons

Archives: 1

Contradiction

Estimates by astrophysicists of the number of particles in the observable universe are currently on the order of 1085.
The estimated amount of atoms in the universe is around 10120.[citation needed]

atoms are just one kind of aprticles, so how ca they outnumber them? TeunSpaans 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe >>> observable universe. emijrp (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Universe >>> observable universe". This is true, but the problem is that statement two (# atoms in universe) is ambiguous. The true size of the entire universe (visible and non-visible universe) is not known, (it may be infinite), so statement two would have to then refer to the observable universe which means that it is a contradiction as indicated by TeunSpaans. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "current image" at the top reports 2000 volumes, and "cost of printed" reports 18000. Why such a big difference?

Hard to say as the image section, unlike the cost section does not show any workings. A quick check of the workings in the cost section seems to indicate that the answer is incorrect but the correct answer is nowhere near the 2000 (where does that figure come from>). I'll recheck and correct the cost section later if no one else has done so. PRL42 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation rate

From the article:

"In mid 2006 the rate of new article creation was still rising, but only slowly. As of January 2007 it looks like the rate of article creation may have peaked in mid 2006, though it would be premature to state that it did so for certain."

This should be qualified by stating that there have been new techniques put in place that prevent articles from being created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example? emijrp (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction of account creation privileges, first from anonymous editors, later from new editors. --Slashme (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have update most of details related to Wikipedia numbers. I'm going to remove the tag. emijrp (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of printed Wiki

I have simplified and rewritten this as it was barely understandable. This may fall foul of the 'no synthesis' rule but as it is impossible to come up with one definitive figure and the text makes it clear that it is not in any way intended to be definitive or authoritative maybe it is acceptable. PRL42 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]