Jump to content

Talk:73 (number)

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


Reorganize?

[edit]

There is only one entry under "in popular culture", but many of the listings under "in other fields" are pop-culture-related. Should they be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.85.28 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who really cares? What would moving them do for the world? Anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.252.136 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[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!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'The rhythmic clapping at sporting events that precedes “Let’s Go!”'

[edit]

This statement is incorrect. The actual rhythmic sequence is: -- ..- ...- .- which in Morse Code spells MUVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.252.136 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Big Bang Theory's Sheldon's reference unimportant?

[edit]

I edited and removed the [importance?] item assuming that it was in there accidentally (by intertia, who knows).

It was reinserted claiming that he still questions the importance.

I'm quite puzzled by this --- how can someone question the importance of factually correct information about the number 73 in an encyclopedia entry about the number 73?

The page's purpose is to provide facts and information about the number 73, not about judgment or qualifications about that information.

Almost every single Wikipedia page about a number has a section "In popular culture" or "In film and TV" or "In other fields" that include popular culture and TV among others. The page on 7 mentions the Star Trek Voyager character Seven of Nine; the page on 2 mentions the fictional character Number Two; the page on 42, well, one could almost say that it is about Douglas Adams' Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to 42.

Why would a reference to a TV episode about a ranting on the perfection of the number 73 (with solid and factually correct arguments) be considered of questionable importance?

Can we please agree on leaving that piece of information and removing the questioning of its importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal-linux (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless there is an external third-party discussion of the use of "73" on the show, and its importance. Character names (No. 2, No. 6, Agent 86, Agent 99, 007, etc.) can be easily documented. "42" in Hitchhiker's Guide is also an internet meme, and there is an much discussion, not just in the context of the radio novels/movies/radio plays/tatoos/stained glass windows[notes 1].... I'm not really happy with "47" in Star Trek, but there are apparently are external sources. I've removed the references to the 6 "magic" numbers in "Lost", as 6 out of 108 is not all that rare. Do you see any inconsistency in my arguments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily see inconsistency --- I just do not agree with your point. Is this your opinion, or is it a clearly stated rule in the Wikipedia guidelines? I do not remember any such rule. The types of rules I remember are: avoid "opinion" or "point of view" statements, avoid non-verifiable information, etc. Verifiable does not mean verifiable through contents on the Internet --- many references on Wikipedia pages are to textbooks; they're still verifiable.
In a page about a number, we want factual information about that number, regardless of whether or not people have discussed about it. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, some obscure fact should be every bit as important as some fact that everybody knows --- in fact, if anything, obscure facts (as in, those on which there are no discussions around) should be more important than the facts that people talk about! It's an encyclopedia, after all !!
My view is that unless you show me some official Wikipedia guidelines stating what you say above (or that the entire community of watchers confirm it), I will continue to insist that this reference to 73 should be in, and its importance should not be questioned. (added by: Cal-linux, 2014-09-14 --- I thought I was logged in, but my IP showed up; hopefully it is removed now?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal-linux (talk • contribs)
There is one principle that you have not considered, that of verifiability. That requires that there been some source for the importance (not just the prevalence) of 73; if there are other numbers of importance in The Big Bang Theory, that reduces the importance to this article. Specific related guidelines include WP:NUM#Numbers in fiction:

In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles. Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance.

I can't find a specific guideline requiring the importance to be sourced, other that WP:V and WP:OR. That it is conspicuous might be observable from the actual show, but ....
Others at WT:NUM might have further comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, verifiability to me is the main "non-issue" here --- what can be unverifiable about something that has been broadcast in TV and later published in DVD/Bluray format as well as all sorts of streaming, from illegal downloads to Netflix and the like? That's precisely why I started my complaint about the issue of importance saying that this is "factually correct information related to the number 73".
As for the guideline you point out --- this reference passes that, I belive with flying colors; the scriptwriters of the show seem to have specifically waited for episode 73 of the show to include this ranting. The ranting goes on for a while. Also, the fact that in numerous episodes after that one sees Sheldon wearing the T-shirt with 73 on it. It's not like the episode is about this fact; but it is a very prominent sketch of the episode (well, at least for those of us who can understand math and numbers :-) )
Either way, I think we can can this discussion, provided that you agree that these external sources pass your test:
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/73 (notice that there are 48 comments in it!)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632225/quotes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIYMmbHik08 (270 comments)
http://www.amazon.com/T-Shirt-From-Sheldons-Closet-Theory/dp/B00N09TJ4G
http://the-big-bang-theory.com/quotes/episode/410/
http://feldfrei.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/73-the-best-number/ (though this is a blog from someone --- which could potentially make this qualify as original research, though it is not that someone the one editing this page ---, there is a discussion about it, which is what you seemed to look for?)
http://shirtoid.com/40356/sheldons-73-shirt/ (interestingly, in this one someone mentions that Jim Parsons (the actor that plays Sheldon) was born in 1973! :-) )
So, can we now agree on removing the item questioning the importance of this reference?
Cal-linux (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked Youtube, but all the others (including IMDB) are personal blogs. IMDB is not a "personal" blog, but trivia is sourced only to the person adding it. If any of those sources have editorial review, I might reconsider, depending on the degree of editorial review and of verification of importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Smut", by Tom Lehrer
It is relevant because all of the reasons given for the importance of 73 have their own Wikipedia articles. The joke itself was well researched and referenced. MMetro (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The joke is not referenced. Yet. Nor does it seem important. Nor does it seem to be in Big Bang Theory; if it were sufficiently important to be in 73 (number), it should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The number "73" still does not appear in Big Bang Theory. If it does not, within a few days, Big Bang Theory will be gone from here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the importance? tag unaware of the discussion on this talk page and was swiftly reverted. I think it's ridiculous. Google "73 number" and the first three hits after this wp page are big bang theory related. A scene from one of the most popular sitcoms is dedicated to 73. To a number! Of course that's notable. There's only one person who disagrees, so per majority consensus i'm removing the tag again. It's 3 to 1 now, so please stop reverting. PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important enough for a paragraph here, it's important enough for three paragraphs in Big Bang Theory, and the editors there would generally be more aware of the importance. Start writing there, first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those is a WP:RS for the facts of the matter, not to mention the importance. I'm probably not going to revert again, but I started an RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Number of editors is unimportant in determining WP:CONSENSUS; it's the weight of arguments. You might as well use the number of edits made by the commenting editors, in which case it's still at least 33-1 against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: 73 in Big Bang Theory

[edit]
Consensus is pretty clear that there should be no mention of the number 73 in either article. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be mention of the use of 73 in The Big Bang Theory in either article? If so, which? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer added to Talk:The Big Bang Theory Also inform @PizzaMan, MMetro, and Cal-linux: Inform of RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, even though I'm almost certain they would unanimously support my view, as I can't think of a project to inform on "the other side". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Include in this article only - There already exists a very low bar for inclusion in this article. It is mostly a collection of trivia about the number 73. So you either allow this here or remove half of the existing content, and I'm for the former. Agree with PizzaMan, disagree with Arthur Rubin: there is no inherent requirement for equal notability between the two articles. As a side comment, there are far more significant things to argue about at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Mandruss' opinion below in the discussion section). PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include in either article As explained in the discussion section below, the Sheldon's discussion of 73 is non-notable trivia. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • exclude does not meet the bar. Contrary to Mandruss's assertion, I see only a handful of trivia items of a similar nature in the article , but for the ones that are of a similar trivial nature, I support excluding them as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in this article only per the arguments i gave below. In short: the top hits when you google "73 number" are all references to the The Big Bang Theory. So i think it's the most notable mention of the number 73 in popular culture and deserves more mention then most of the other bullet points on this page. Tens of millions of people who never gave the number 73 any thought before were made aware of it's interesting properties. Also note that notability is asymmetrical: the notability of the 73 scene and Sheldon's "73 is the best number" shirts in The Big Bang Theory pages isn't relevant for the notability of The Big Bang Theory on this page. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Run your google query incognito and you get very different results (google is slanting its results because it knows you like BBT). The #2 hit is Sheldon, but thats the only BBT hit in the next several pages. For images, the "tshirt" image doesnt show up until #12 and #22. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A relevant point, so I did that and all results on the first page except this wp page are related to or mention TBBT. Perhaps google results are also ip based? Or perhaps if anyone cares about 73 it's mostly because of TBBT. Either way, Aussielegend had a good point that we should try to keep the survey section clean and have discussion below. Shall we move this to the discussion section?PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from both, in case anyone was wondering.
    1. Seems to be non-recurring trivia. If "73" were to be a thread throughout the entire series, there would be an argument for inclusion, as is "47" in J. J. Abrams work. We could discuss that if it were to be the case, but the subject-matter experts agree that it isn't.
      1. The number 73 is more notable than The Big Bang Theory, so that for the matter to be relevant here, it must be relevant there.
      2. The subject-matter experts agree that it would not be relevant, even to an article about the particular episode.
    2. We have no source for the relationship, other than the episode itself, a few YouTube videos (whether or not copyright violations). perhaps some unpublished commentary by the show's staff and actors, and a quote on a T-shirt. Not what I (or Wikipedia's policy against "original research") would consider adequate.
      There is some dispute as to whether the source for an entry in a "list" article need to be in the list, or could be in the article listed. As neither is the case here, that's not really a factor.
    3. I could think of some more reasons, but this seems adequate to me for multiple arguments against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from this article. When I Google for "73", the first hit related to The Big Bang Theory is at no. 80. I have no opinion about (or interest in) the article on the sitcom. Maproom (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude, per WP:UNDUE. Sheldon liking the number 73 is a single joke in TBBT. If it was an important plot point as, say, 42 in THHGTTG it would be a different matter. “WarKosign” 17:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from both as minor trivia. The reasons given by Sheldon for its notability are already in the 73 article, so its reason for inclusion in TBBT does not add interest to the number (not that this would be an important criterion - just emphasizing how little this would add). -- Scray (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
It's not very notably from the big bang theory's perspective, the show is full of theories and trivia. But that's not relevant here. This isn't a talk page on the big bang theory but on the number 73. A simple google search on "73 number" shows that the big bang theory is the most notable association with the number. The first three hits after this wp page are on the big bang theory. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Googlehits a re not reliable sources and generally do not go to establising notability. I must be seeing something different to you. What I see when I do a google search is:
  1. This article
  2. The Big Bang Theory wiki
  3. A YouTube video which is a WP:LINKVIO
  4. Images for 73 number
  5. "73 – the best number" - An anonymous blog
  6. "The Big Bang Theory - The Alien Parasite Hypothesis Quotes" @ the-big-bang-theory.com, which is a fansite
I'm not seeing the notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what i see too. The videos are all big bang theory videos. You'll notice that many of the images are the number 73 in a circle, with sometimes "the best number" written above or below. That's all references to Sheldon's statement in the big bang theory and the shirt he likes to wear. So is the "73 - the best number" blog if you would read it. Look at it this way: this page hasn't established to how many people the number 73 was notable. Few people probably ever gave the number 73 a thought. Then comes this episode, which was watched by 12 million people in the US on the first screening alone. So a manifold of that has been made aware of the notability of the number 73 through the big bang theory. Should wikipedia really be that disconnected from the public awareness? Ignore the many people who come to this page because Sheldon made an argument of how special the number 73 is to look up his reasons? I'm sure you can throw a bunch of WP: policies in the face of me and all those people to justify removing the bullet point. But why not do our users a favor and give them the information they come to this page for. It's obviously the number one reason people look for information on the number 73. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a Big Bang Theory fan, I find the connection to 73 really trivial. Just because there isn't much to say about the number doesn't mean you should grasp at straws. Sheldon's compulsive need to knock three times is much more prominent, but I don't have any great urge to add it to 3's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument for removing the article entirely if the most popular reason people come to this page isn't notable enough. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 73 should neither be mentioned in this article nor on The Big Bang Theory: it was only mentioned a single character very briefly in one episode. If an article for "The Alien Parasite Hypothesis" was written, 73 could possibly be mentioned there but I can't find any reviews of the episode which even mention it, so it's probably not notable there either. For comparison, something much more notable in another sitcom—83 on How I Met Your Mother, used in many episodes as a recurring in-joke—is not mentioned on 83 (number). The facts themselves that were used in the episode (21st prime, reverse is 12th etc., palindrome in binary) don't seem to be notable either based on a quick search. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is all from the perspective of The Big Bang Theory and episode 73. From the perspective of the number 73, which this page is about: The Big Bang Theory is by far the most popular mention of the number 73, as demonstrated by the top hits on Google. So if that use isn't sufficiently notable, the whole page should be deleted. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites tend to discuss everything about TV series so mention on a fansite means nothing. None of the "top hits on Google" are reliable sources and the fact that The Big Bang Theory scene is not mentioned in reliable sources demonstrates the scene's lack of notability. The lack of mention of TBBT scene is not justification for deletion of the entire page. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a number page of reasonable length on 73 without mentioning The Big Bang Theory, or even the facts said within it. It seems to be a reasonably notable number to me, but even if it didn't, the guideline WP:NUMBER#Notability of specific individual numbers says "For the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the other." — Bilorv(talk)(c) 09:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources on most of the other trivia on this page. Nor proof of their notability. Why delete the big bang reference and not all the other bullet points? The big bang theory is clearly the most popular mention, whether wikipedia policies accept references as sufficient or not. If the most popular mention the number 73 isn't notable then none (or few) of the other bullet points are either. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this were appropriate here, it would be appropriate at The Big Bang Theory (note: The Big Bank Theory, which I typed first, would be a good name for a Simpsons episode), not just the article for episode 73. It's not there. The subject-matter experts who edit there agree it shouldn't be there. I would like to remove J.J. Abrams from 47, but there appears to be a real source for both the fact and its importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the notability of the number 73 in the Big Bang theory depends on the notability of it's mention here. The big bang theory is very full of theories and trivia, way too much to mention. On the other hand, this is the most significant moment that the number 73 got a mention on main stream TV. I also don't see how this answers my question why the big bang theory mention doesn't deserve a place on this page as compared to all the other points that are neither referenced, nor have any prove of notability and which are, per google search, less notable in public opinion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point (or at least, my point) is that because it is not notable enough, it is not included in any TBBT articles. It is therefore not notable enough to be included anywhere on Wikipedia. Have you seen the episode (singular) in which 73 was mentioned? (This is a genuine question.) It's not key to the episode. It has little bearing on the number.
As for other content on the page, I've not discussed that. Its inclusion or removal is not relevant to this conversation. WP:OSE seems loosely related, but the most helpful link for "is this a notable article?" is, as I have mentioned before, WP:NUMBER#Notability of specific individual numbers, a guideline which says "yes". But while we're here, why not try to improve the rest of the article? I'm not too knowledgeable on math/number article guidelines — while "Seventy-three is the 21st prime number" is certainly true, does it need to be sourced? And if the article says "[73 is] The atomic number of tantalum", does this article need to include a reference? It doesn't even seem to have a reference in the GA article tantalum. Note: I would certainly enjoy a Simpsons episode named "The Big Bank Theory". — Bilorv(talk)(c) 22:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You repeat the point that the notability of TBBT mention here is dependent on the mention of the number 73 in TBBT, but just repeating that doesn't help me understand how the notability of 73 in TBBT is dependent on the notability of TBBT in 73. 73 is the atom number of tantalum, very true, but i think tantalums atomic number is more relevant on that page than tantalums relevance on the 73 page. Also, because a page on 73 has to exist, the bar is obviously lowered here, that's why i think "other stuff like this exists" is very much a valid argument in this context, especially since the other stuff has even less relevance in relation to the number 73 per google results. If there has to be an article on the number 73, at least let's serve our customers with the number one reason people look the number up. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you rely on Google results. Wikipedia doesn't. It relies on reliable sources. Maybe that's the problem with this article — it doesn't have any. I'm sure there are plenty of books that mention 73, whether in a sequence of prime numbers or a discussion of Waring's problem. But I can't find a reliable source mentioning 73 in a TBBT context (and you've not provided one), so it shouldn't be in the article. Additionally, we have a perfectly reasonable article without the TBBT fact, so we don't need to lower the bar for anything. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's going to make it impossible to determine the outcome of the RfC if supports and opposes are mixed in with general comments. I'm having trouble sorting it out already. Discussion should remain in this section, with clear statements as to preferred outcome in the "survey" section above. Any comments on statements made in that section should be addressed in this one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Include in this article only - There already exists a very low bar for inclusion in this article. It is mostly a collection of trivia about the number 73. So you either allow this here or remove half of the existing content, and I'm for the former. Agree with PizzaMan, disagree with Arthur Rubin: there is no inherent requirement for equal notability between the two articles. As a side comment, there are far more significant things to argue about at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely wrong. Facts need to be sourcable. "73 is the 21st prime" almost falls under WP:CALC, and whatever element of which it is an atomic number can be sourced. I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but this fact requires a source not affiliated with the show; at a minimum, for the fact, but, IMO, also for the importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worth arguing with you about; I've said my piece and I'm out. Best wishes to all. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I tend to agree with Mandruss' comment that this isn't worth arguing, I actually find it ridiculous (and abusive) to claim tentative consensus with three people arguing against inclusion of TBBT and two arguing in favor, and actually knowing that there is my vote and posted arguments in favor of leaving it (I just hadn't logged in to Wikipedia recently, so I didn't even know about the survey). I actually vote for re-inclusion; the mention was always there; one person questioned its importance and proposed a survey that results in a 3-3 vote (including my vote now); how is that a tentative consensus? Also, the fact that Amazon.com sells the Sheldon T-shirt with the number 73 still leaves that scene/reference as unimportant? (in what universe? in all 26 of them? ;-) ) Cal-linux (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can also buy a Sheldon T-shirt reading "Council of Ladies", or a caffeine molecule T-shirt that Leonard wore in one single episode, and that none of the characters even commented on. Yes, these merchandise do still leave the things they mention unimportant. (Also, we're not voting for anything.) — Bilorv(talk)(c) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fansites' inability to meet WP:RS, all of the information from the minor joke remains verifiable, and therefore, the proper procedure should be to include the information while citing reliable sources, in a manner similar to Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock. MMetro (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock is not from The Big Bang Theory. If 73 were a running thread on the show, and the fact were mentioned in reliable sources, I would still argue against inclusion here, but there would be a credible argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both RPSLS and 73 were mentions in episodes of the show. The game article mentions the mention with two citations. In addition, Arthur, your argument of needing mutual importance to the BBT article is faulty, as that article functions as an overview of the television series. This article serves to describe the properties of the number 73. The joke can be found at Wikiquote, 73 is WP:CALC through the Sieve of Eratosthenes, and as for Google, Wikipedia is a top hit so exclusion of the information amounts to a form of censorship. With the length of this discussion and your domineeering refutation, it seems more and more like the reason the information has not been put in is you, Arthur, and that does not seem to be in Wikipedia's spirit at all. Wikipedia is better served by including the information and providing the cites of reputable sources. It exists as an online encyclopedia of information, and the BBT joke is an encyclopedia on the number 73. MMetro (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that trivia is not encyclopedic, and it is clearly Wikipedia policy that not all sourced material should be in Wikipedia. (Besides, Wikiquote is not required to user reliable sources has defined on Wikipedia, so is not even evidence that it could be used.) That "4" is among the six "magic numbers" in Lost is not a significant fact abour 4; that "42" is mentioned in HGTTG is significant both in 42 and in HGTTG; that "47" is mentioned in much of JJ Abrams's work is mentioned in 47, JJ Abrams, and Star Trek articles. "73" is mentioned in one episode of TBBT, and, IIRC, it isn't even a significant plot point in the context of that episode. I admit the joke may be in an encyclopedia article on 73, but that doesn't mean it should be in ours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bingo names -

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Prime, an the number 73 being permutable

[edit]

@Radlrb As I had written in my edit summary previously: the fact that the number 73 is a permutable prime has little if anything to do with it being a Sheldon Prime. If you look into the proof attached, you'll discover that they only ever talk about it being reversible, as in you can write the number back to front. And that's what they prove for all other numbers too. It is not at all useful to link the section 'permutable', because that is a different property. JackTheSecond (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is understood, I am placing it as a matter-of-fact that these two numbers are simultaneously part of the sequence of permutable primes [which is why I said specifically this time, in likeness]. Radlrb (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This being said, it also has much to do with it, in the sense that it first needs to be a permutable prime before being considered a Sheldon prime, as part of the definition is that both permutation of its digits yield prime numbers whose indexes are themself permutation of their digits (though not prime, here, that would be a yet-added property that these two numbers do not contain), so including this information is essentially already rooted in the point at hand. Radlrb (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're misunderstanding Permutable primes a little bit. A prime being permutable is a stronger property than is being defined in this case in that digits need to be able to take any other digits' position with the number remaining prime. A stronger property that mention of, in my opinion, has great potential to confuse the reader. Better to state it in its own section. JackTheSecond (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misunderstanding permutable primes (lol). They are a league higher in some senses (Sheldon primes are a bit more complex, because they incorporate the prime indices of the primes themselves), the only point I am making it is that it is a place where this notion can be extended and compared with another like-property (i.e. permutable primes). It does not harm the reader, I believe, especially since they are related concepts, and an extension and link for readers to understand what a permutable or emirp primes are, which 73 is a part of both. However, I will follow your wish, and move that point. I hope this consolidates our wishes, and what we think are the wishes of readers. Radlrb (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M,Amin Bluetooth smile

[edit]

main ajmal mein rahata hun mujhe packing kam ki jarurat hai jija ji 0564646277 5.193.127.253 (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:73_(number)&oldid=1248047962"