Wikipedia talk:Pools

This page was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2018. The result of the discussion was Keep.

These plans appear to make sense:

• When Wikipedia reaches 2.5 million articles, the Five-million pool closes and a Twenty-million pool is opens.
• When Wikipedia reaches 5 million articles, the Ten-million pool closes and a Fifty-million pool opens.
• When Wikipedia reaches 10 million articles, the Twenty-million pool closes and a Hundred-million pool opens.
• When Wikipedia reaches 25 million articles, the Fifty-million pool closes and a 200-million pool opens.
• When Wikipedia reaches 50 million articles, the Hundred-million pool closes and a 500-million pool opens.

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:

1. Wikipedia:Thousand-million pool
2. Wikipedia:1000-million pool
3. Wikipedia:10^9 pool
4. Wikipedia:Giga-article pool

Any opinions?? Georgia guy 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I similarly like "Giga-article pool" Voortle 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

• I don't think we need any more polls about when such-or-such will happen. They're all pretty much alike and the novelty has worn out. (Radiant) 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

a) it had been deleted before after due process (it had not),

b) "Future predictions are not suitable for Wikipedia" (not relevant to, say, the institution of pools or to the project namespace in general

c) "the joke got old after the first few [pools]". Aside from joke pools, of which the eleventy-billion pool is the only significant one, the others were not intended as jokes.

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)[reply]

• Incorrect. That pool was in fact deleted as a "recreation" (valid CSD), but at the same time an MFD that had run for four days on the subject was unanimously in favor of deletion. >Radiant< 11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand my point. Arthur Rubin deleted the page out of process in November 2006, even though the last AfD of the page up to that point had ended in a speedy keep. I undeleted on thos grounds. ^demon mistakenly deleted the page as 'recreation' -- a term which does not apply to a page deleted unilaterally and out of process. Yes, the MfD at the time resulted in a 'delete', and as noted above every single vote in that discussion indicated confusion about Wikipedia policies or about the page's history. +sj +
    • The consensus in this talk page was clearly to delete, in 2006, and is still to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# 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)[reply]

Yes, see Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/10th GNAA VfD ON WHEELS! and a pool for it at Wikipedia:10 GNAA AfD nominations pool which was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/10 GNAA AfD nominations pool (2nd nomination), but the article itself lasted up until #18 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)). Now go cry in a corner! :P --WikiSlasher 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• close a pool for voting when the count reaches 80% (not 50% as currently)
• as the 5 million pool is closed already I propose we open a second pool for the 5 million under the new rules
• open a pool when the count reaches 50% (not 12.5% as currently)
• as the 10 and 20 million pool should not have been opened under this rule these are treated as exceptions
• milestones should be for 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 million for now.

I propose to

• open a Wikipedia:Four-million pool (could have opened long ago) to be closed at reaching 3.2 million articles
• open a Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2) to be closed at reaching 4 million articles
• open a Wikipedia:Six-million pool as we recently reached 3M, to be closed at reaching 4.8 million articles

Any objections? HenkvD (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the mentioned pools today. HenkvD (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The English Wikipedia passed three and a half million today, on 12 December, so I created a Wikipedia:Seven-million pool. JIP | Talk 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting close to four million now, so once that happens, the five-million pool should be closed and an eight-million pool should be opened. JIP | Talk 18:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia reached four million today, on 13 July 2012, so I created an Eight-million pool. JIP | Talk 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How do people create pools? M'encarta (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just creates the project page, advertises it somewhere, and people come and edit it as they would any other page. -- œ^™ 09:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, the 4MP closed at 3.2 million articles, not 3.5 million. Georgia guy (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then 4.2 million then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia pools should be closed when the total article count is 80% of the pool's number. 80% of 4 million is 3.2 million. 80% of 5 million is 4 million. Georgia guy (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says who that Wikipedia pools should be closed when the total article count is 80% of the pool's number?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:HenkvD says so. Go further up this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the rule of 50% toi 80% a few yars ago, as indeed it is still years ahead (if ever). HenkvD (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poposal is to keep the 5 million pool open for a a few more weeks. Alternatively a 3rd 5M pool could be opened an kept open until 4.5M. Any ideas? HenkvD (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can that third 5M pool be the first in a new sequence of pools?? How does this new sequence work?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather against the idea of creating a new series of pools. The current series (pool opened at 50% and closed at 80%) seems to be working fine. This third 5 million pool would only be closed at 90%, which is pretty close to the whole amount. There is little challenge to the pool if people are allowed to vote close to the actual milestone. JIP | Talk 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to make the following pools:

• Surpassed by another Wikipedia: Closes when difference between second-largest wikipedia and English Wikipedia is below 10,000.
• 2,000 admins: Closes when there are 1,750 admins
• 3,000 admins: Closes when there are 2,500 admins
• 3,141 admins: Closes when there are 2,718 admins
• 50 bureaucrats: Closes when there are 40 bureaucrats
• 100 bureaucrats: Closes when there are 75 bureaucrats
• 40,000,000 pages: Closes when there are 36,000,000 pages
• 50,000,000 pages: Closes when there are 45,000,000 pages
• 25,000,000 users: Closes when there are 20,000,000 users
• 31,415,927 users: Closes when there are 27,182,818 users

m'encarta (t) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 20M closing at 19M is at 95%, better change that to 18M (90%) or 17.5M. I suggest also to add 30M users, maybe 25M users. Maybe also 2,500 admins, 75 Bureacrats for smaller gaps. Pi and ln (86%) is strange, but might attract some users.

You also need a rule when it is OK to open a new pool. For instance at 50%: you can open a pool for 4000 admins when 2000 is reached. Or: when one milestone is reached a next may be opened. In that case ehen 2000 admins are reached you can decided to open one for 3500, 4000, 6000 or so, depening on the expected growth. HenkvD (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one see closing even at 90% as closing way too late. The current rule, closing at 80%, is fine. Closing too close (pun not intended) to the milestone lessens the challenge. JIP | Talk 20:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the first one should close at a difference of 50,000 articles. - Ypnypn (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Created. - Ypnypn (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Anyhow for the first 5000th FA pool User:Zginder is the unofficial winner, if he reaches the finish (at 5000 FA). He can't loose. HenkvD (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I, for one, find it very unlikely to ever happen. At least not during my lifetime. JIP | Talk 21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here just now to see if this had been suggested before. The Cebuano Wikipedia is drawing pretty close to English at meta:List of Wikipedias. en.wiki leads with 5,571,838 to 5,383,105 Cebuano articles at the moment. The recent changes log at the Cebuano Wikipedia (ceb:Espesyal:Bag-ongGiusab) isn't showing many articles created in the last few days, but a new burst of Lsjbot generated articles could probably bring Cebuano past English within a few weeks. At this point, I don't think there's much question "whether one day English will no longer be the largest Wikipedia". Nor is there any question that Cebuano will be one to surpass it. The question is when Sverker Johansson finds another database to mine and fires up the bot for a new round of Cebuano articles.Plantdrew (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, further milestones by the million seem more plausible than enormous future milestones. Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Wikipedia:Eleven-million pool. A twelve-million pool should be opened by the time we reach six million articles. JIP | Talk 07:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should open the quadrillion pool because: It has been estimated that the Earth will have a population of one million million million people by 3000AD. This is said to be the maximum possible population and would require considerable feats of engineering to support it. (Lyall Watson PhD, "Standing Room Only", Eagle and Boys' World, 21 October 1967). By dividing the number of people included in a biographical dictionary of notable living people in a particular country into that country's population (65.64 million ÷ 33,000), I think it possible to estimate that very roughly one in two thousand people are notable. That would lead to a figure of very roughly 500 trillion BLPs by the year 3000AD. So I think we should start Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool, as this might actually be technically possible. James500 (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may open it when we reach half a quadrillion articles. My guess is that it won't be soon though. HenkvD (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]