# Wikipedia number entries **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854 "2010-03-18T06:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/1 "2010-03-18T06:49:05Z")
I have just discovered that Wikipedia has, or plans to have, [individual entries on every integer from -1 to 200](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numbers#How_far_to_go.3F), plus all multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, multiples of 1000 to 9000, and all higher powers of 10 that have a name or a commonly used SI prefix (and any other “mathematically interesting” numbers). Here, for instance, is the entry on [74](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/74_%28number%29). Is it just me, or is this even more absurd (not to say nerdy) than all the entries on obscure characters from Manga or video games, or on songs by bands that hardly anyone has heard of? I can see the point in having entries on particularly mathematically interesting numbers (and I am aware of the “proof” that there is no highest, or lowest, interesting number), but really, every one from -1 to 200!\* Come to that, why just the integers? How about some love for the reals? 😃 ```auto *This is not, you may thank Og, meant to be factorial 200. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/2 "2010-03-18T06:57:44Z")
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42\_(number)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)) ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/3 "2010-03-18T07:04:58Z")
42 it! I spent too much time editing and blew it. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/4 "2010-03-18T07:14:00Z")
Actually, I discovered the number entries by looking up 42. I expected there to be an entry for that, but 43! 74! ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/5 "2010-03-18T07:20:42Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Is it just me, or is this even more absurd (not to say nerdy) than all the entries on obscure characters from Manga or video games, or on songs by bands that hardly anyone has heard of? I agree. It makes their hard-on for getting rid of articles I’d actually look up even more annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-number-entries/532854/6 "2010-03-18T15:50:11Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Is it just me, or is this even more absurd (not to say nerdy) than all the entries on obscure characters from Manga or video games, or on songs by bands that hardly anyone has heard of? Clearly, this will give me something to do when I’m bored and easily distracted. And [according to the Onion](http://www.theonion.com/content/news/marijuana_use_triples_among_gary), I suppose that will be happening a lot. ETA: **Claude** , I fixed your link for you.