Talk:200 (number)

Articles 'grown' here

In accordance with a sensible procedure practiced by User:GUllman, the articles for the numbers 201 to 299 will be 'grown' here in the article on 200 until they are big enough to merit their own articles. Once that happens, a new page is created for the number in question, linking back to this page, and this page is changed to indicate that the number now has its own article. User:PrimeFan

Number of bones

I learned several times in my life that human beings have 206 bones, but Wikipedia says 214. Is this a belief of human beings that changed?? 66.32.143.38 19:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

This could be one of those things that depends on whether some things are counted as one unit or two (see 72 and 73 for an example on how books of the Bible are counted).

I'm going to get a copy of Gray's Anatomy, count the bones and let you know what I come up with. PrimeFan 18:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

this was my source for saying 214: http://www.archimedes-lab.org/atelier.html?http://www.archimedes-lab.org/numbers/Num201_500.html hte Wikipedia article human skeleton says 206. 141.217.173.174 19:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I came up with by counting in Gray's Anatomy, 206 bones, not counting cartillage. I also looked on the Web, and many sites consistently said 206. I could only find two sites saying 214, one of them giving 214 as a maximum, and another one citing 214 as a misstatement of fact in the movie T2. PrimeFan 14:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

252 684740511 197.220.90.59 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles on integers 201-1945

I want to see what the best consensus on what to do for integers that meet 2 pieces of criteria:

1. Fall in the range 201-1945
2. Can't get articles of their own greater than a stub

Any opinions on putting year/number info in one article?? Georgia guy 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the way it's been handled so far is just fine. CompositeFan 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Observation that 202 doesn't have its own article

I commented out from the article the observation that 202 is the smallest positive integer without its own Wikipedia article. I don't think self-referentiality is appropriate for this article. CompositeFan 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The interesting fact is that there is no approporiate place for this observation, except in these discussion pages. Composite Fan is right that self-reference would be inappropriate. However, there doesn't seem to be a page of trivia about Wikipedia, possibly because trivia sections themselves are discouraged. Glory311 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

if a news story or commentary in a major magazine etc mentions self referentiality in WP, or the interest in WP trivia that cant make it into WP due to WP's rules for inclusion, then we can include it, even write an article about it. and if a reliable source comments on the recursive nature of this phenomenon, we can mention it here as well. if we're lucky, with help from, say, Wired magazine (anyone there reading this?), we can attempt an infinite recursion, though i guess that would require waiting for the Big Crunch and infinite compression of time/space to see if we succeeded. maybe the alien race from the future which gave us quantum mechanics could tell us how far this goes into the future.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprimable

i am not generally familiar wit the term "imprimable" and have not been able to find any references to it other than a site called http://www.numbersaplenty.com/. Other references found on google search appear to cite this article. Is this a well established enough concept to merit mention here?

Djkammer (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

063 7026301

Aamiin capdi clLaahi 154.115.221.237 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)