Talk:1000 (number)

Untitled
The procedure for the articles on the numbers 200, 300, through 900, was based on a procedure that User:GUllman practiced with articles on the numbers 20, 30 through 90, of including at the end stubs for the non-round numbers for the numbers that followed (i.e., the article on 300 has at its end stubs for the articles on 301 to 399). The stubs are grown there until they grow big enough to merit their own articles.

When we come to the thousands, we find that fewer numbers in this range will grow big enough to merit their own articles. In fact, many of them might not merit stubs at all. So there will only be extremely short stubs for selected numbers in the 1000s. Some of these will grow to merit their own articles. Many will not. PrimeFan 1426 3:04 mklo--76.251.40.223 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Feb 2004 [opk]

Bogus Reference?
koouy's there a reference to "Meehan, Eileen R., Why TV is not our fault : television programming, viewers, and who's really in control Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005"?
 * I was going to point out the same. --Ben T/C 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a reference to 1200 being the sample size in Nielsen ratings. Found by brute force - searching edit by edit to find the one where it was added. 195.197.240.134 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article for chilia-
To make sure you know this, chilia- is the Greek numerical prefix for 1000. The Latin equivalent is mill-. I've been checking to see if there are enough chilia words for Wikipedia to have an article on this prefix. Can anyone think of any?? 66.245.2.106 14:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Chiliad (a group of 1000 things; a millennium), chiliagon, chiliahedron, chiliarch (the commander of 1000 men), chiliasm (millenarianism), chiliast, chiliomb (a sacrifice of 1000). I didn't think of these - I looked them up - and I left out the obsolete ones. --Heron 15:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * kilo- itself is based on this Greek word, with a simplified spelling. In Italian it is still chilometro and Latinists use chiliometrum.  &#8212;Muke Tever 17:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, what is the reason for the different spelling?? 66.245.22.143 18:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well the form "kilo-" was, I believe, coined by the French. Presumably this was to make a standard pronunciation; chi- can be read several different ways across the languages of Europe, e. with [tS] in English, [S] in French, [cC] in Spanish, [k] in Italian, [C] in German... and French doesn't have the [x] of the original.  As for the second syllable, different languages will read -lio- with either one or two syllables...  This is purely speculation, of course, but not unheard of; similar things have happened, just check the history of the word gas.  &#8212;Muke Tever 21:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * From the OED: "An arbitrary derivative of Gr. &#967;&#943;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#953; a thousand, introduced in French in 1795, at the institution of the Metric system..." It appears that the precise reason for using the k is unknown. I'm not sure the French had cross-language portability in mind in 1795, but it is a posibility, I suppose. &#8212;Tkinias 10:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe they just didn't want another prefix starting with c since they also had centi-. Jimp 5Dec05

Docuan table messed up for some reason
For some reason, the Docuan table is messed up. I tried to fix it but my fix didn't work. I think the articles for 2k through 9k have the same problem. PrimeFan 21:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why does 1023 redirect here?
Wyu Huh?


 * Because there's not enough that can be said about it to make it worth giving it its own page. See WikiProject Numbers, and contrast with 1729 or 5040. sjorford (talk)  09:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

100000 cards game
There is also a cards game called 1000. It's from Russia, but i have no further information about this game 84.147.96.192 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If we allowed humor in the mainspace

 * 1004 - smallest number not discussed in Wikipedia... D'oh!

—Random832 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A neat paradox, that (set theory is the larger set). kencf0618 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

now its 1012! Sci09272 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Numbers with A in them
The claim that the letter A does not appear in numbers less than 1,000 is simply not true; what about one hundred and one, one hundred and two, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered myself why people insist on repeating that "fact" about "one thousand" being the lowest positive integer to contain the letter A when "one hundred and one" is considerably lower. However I think I may know the answer.  According to this page: 101 (number), it is not pronounced with the word "and" in American English.  Americans, apparently, pronounce it "one hundred one", in which case the fact about the letter A is indeed true.  In British English, though, we do include the "and" and therefore the fact is NOT true.  Can an American confirm that that is indeed how that number is said in the US?  --Stenun (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * im an american (a californian), and i have heard and used the words "hundred and one" "one hundred and one" "a hundred and one", "one hundred one", so i suggest they all be included as variants. i really dont know which is most common. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article also claims that 1005 is the first number written in English containing all five vowels, which isn't true either, as is shown by one hundred and five, one hundred and fifty and so on. 213.162.73.213 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only true in American English. I've removed the claim.  Thanks for spotting the error. Certes (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And in some cases ...
The article contains the text "... [1001] can in some cases be greater than 1000". I'm reluctant to delete this, because I assume it is there for a reason, but is that wishful thinking, or does the statement have more than just its trivial meaning? Certainly, if there is any reason on Earth for the existance of the text, it needs to be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsg (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Selected numbers in the thousands
There, in my opinion are too many 'Selected numbers in the thousands'. Most individuals couldn't care less about ALL those Mertens function zero's, put those on a separate page.

O Milesimo?
Why not add the legendary footballer Pele's one thousandth goal in this article? I did, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.178.218 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why add it? It certainly doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:NUM.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. At the current point in time, there is no consensus to move any of these pages to a new title. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  05:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

– No need for the (number) dab. Use of commas disinguishes 1,000 the number from 1000 the year, 2,000 the number from 2000 the year etc. Fish567 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1000 (number) → 1,000
 * 2000 (number) → 2,000
 * 3000 (number) → 3,000
 * 4000 (number) → 4,000
 * 5000 (number) → 5,000
 * 6000 (number) → 6,000
 * 7000 (number) → 7,000
 * 8000 (number) → 8,000
 * 9000 (number) → 9,000


 * Not yet. MOS:DIGITS is equally happy with 1000 or 1,000. The idea of distinguishing integers from years by a comma is interesting but less explicit than (number), and of course won't work for 999 etc.  There are other four-digit number articles to consider too. I would wait and see how we get on with the Talk:10000 (number), which I've supported. If we need a quick close then I'll have to oppose this proposal but without prejudice to raising the same question again soon. Certes (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This nonsense (why the auxiliary grouping symbol should be more prominent than the very important decimal separator?) is confusing for people from the rest of the world, where comma is a decimal separator. It is also against the accepted standards. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mikhail Ryazanov. I also believe ISO recommends a half-space between the 1 and 000 to denote 1000. Moving these pages will also likely require updates to dozens of number/year templates. — Andy W. ( talk ) 21:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Comment) ISO says that a small space can be used for readability, but this usually does not apply to 4-digit numbers, since "1000" is readable enough, maybe even better than "1 000". Usually, the spaces are added everywhere only in tables to keep the alignment consistent, but it is not the case here. (And, in any case, "1,000" is much worse than "1000".) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging and  for awareness. — Andy W. ( talk ) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Confusing and unnecessary. "1000 (number)" is a perfectly clear title, in line with policy. Agree with that it would create painful-to-handle exceptions for many templates. — JFG talk 22:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the ping. I did notice the recent moves of 144,000 and 142,857 after minimal discussion. I found the latter curious as its notability seems to be as a decimal, suggesting 0.142857 might be better. I haven't looked into what templates might need to be changed to support such moves. The move of the years 1 through 100 off of the base titles turned out to be a lot more work than anticipated. wbm1058 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (numbers and dates) is the applicable naming convention. wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

,Α´
Isn't the Greek numeral just ,Α instead of the current ,Α´? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved 1000&rarr;AD 1000; no consensus to move 1000 (number) &rarr; 1000. A couple of people were passionate about the Year being the Primary Topic, but this did not seem to be a consensus view. I'll start a move discussion on the 3rd move which garnered support, 1000 (disambiguation)&rarr;1000, as this was not in the original request. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

– Given the preponderance of the decimal numbering system throughout human history (chiefly because we have ten fingers), the number 1000 should be considered the primary topic for title "1000". In addition, a dab page should be created for usages of "1000" that are not about the number itself; they are currently conflated with discussion of the number in this article. (maybe in a later proposal) — JFG talk 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1000 (number) → 1000
 * 1000 → AD 1000
 * Oppose. The year is the primary topic, especially as the number should be written with a comma as in the redirect 1,000. 1000 is generally recognisable as a year while 1,000 is obviously a number. The same applies to 2000 (Y2K) and 2,000 (number). No Great Shaker (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 1st, oppose 2nd, Weak oppose 1st, support 2nd, while the number is more |1000_(number)|1000_(N.E.R.D_and_Future_song)|1000s_(decade) popular and has more long-term significance I'd still recommend moving the DAB to the base name to avoid problems with incoming links.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean you support this RM but you reject my further suggestion to create a separate dab page? Or you support just moving 1000 (number) to 1000, but not 1000 → AD 1000? (then where would it go?) Sorry, I probably shouldn't have made an extra suggestion in my RM statement. I'll strike that for now, it can be another discussion some day. — JFG talk 17:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support moving 1000 (disambiguation) to 1000 and moving the year to AD 1000 as proposed. The bit that I'm less sure about is moving the number to the base name. The DAB page should indeed exist so I'm not sure why you've striked that proposal.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Did you mean to say you support the 2nd move and oppose the 1st? The way you put your position makes it seem so, but the bolded section implies you want to move the number. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops that's why 3 editors had questioned my comment, fixed, thanks. Its probably because I'm used to seeing the article being proposed to be primary as the 1st move.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Partial support. Specifically: support 2nd; weakly oppose 1st but move 1000 (disambiguation) → 1000.   is that what you meant too, or do you have a different suggestion?  The striking above reflects the creation of  during the RM, which seems a good idea whatever the outcome. Certes (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that's correct, my 1st choice would be no PT but regardless of if this is left as is or the number is made primary the DAB should be retained.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 2nd; Oppose 1st but move 1000 (disambiguation) → 1000. (Per above, move disambiguation page to basename.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support as proposed because when people search for 1000 they are not curious about the year when (checks) " Olaf Tryggvason " did something. Red   Slash  02:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support second, oppose 1st. Disambiguation (if you include both 1000 and Thousand) should certainly be primary. Much as I'd like one of the pages in a project I actively participate in to be primary, it's not at all clear that there is a primary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support second and oppose first 2601:541:4500:1760:180D:3FB7:D274:2D33 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support second, move 1000 (disambiguation) as per Certes. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both. The number has vastly more significance than the year. I can't think of a single event that happened in that year, off-hand, and it was a really long time ago. No real value in a dab page, since a hatnote can link to the year directly anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose But move 1000 (disambiguation) → 1000. The article on the number does not contain special studies of (this) number itself (with a clear indication of the sources). Only mentions of the fact that this number is a member of such and such numerical series. This article exists only because in enwiki, the removal of articles is not carried out in accordance with the rules on the significance of the subject of the article or the verification of information, but on the basis of consensus. ·Carn !? 11:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support year, oppose number move, support dab being the primary to help with incorrect incoming links (among other things). --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move cleanup
Comment on primary move outcome: the consensus to move 1000 to AD 1000 does run against the "standard" for other numbers such as 1001, 1002, 1003, etc, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Really don't want to see a move-war set in motion where all start to be moved en masse by an anxious editor. Would also point out that of the 138 entries among all language Wikipedias (see Wikidata), english is now the only one with a qualifying prefix for the year. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks. I also cleaned out the mess of trivia that was at 1000 (number), and improved the dab page for 1000. — JFG talk 00:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * revised hatnotes on AD 1000
 * revised category sort key on AD 1000
 * removed force-to-top key (blank space) for Category:1000 on AD 1000
 * revised Wikidata item
 * added move request to Talk:1000 (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

More entries needed
I need more entries for 4-digit numbers, such as highly abundant number (1008, 1080, 1200, 1440, 1560, 1620, 1800, 1920, and 1980), or maybe seperate to multiples of 100. 14.207.204.171 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Units
Are there philological and mathematical terms for this phenomenon? One doesn't say "Ten hundred", then 1,100 has a choice between "One thousand one hundred" and "Eleven hundred" up to, say... what? Eventually the cohort of hundreds will sound odd, off, until one speaks exclusively in thousands. (Fifteen hundred? Six thousand?) Then again there are millions, billions, trillions, etc., in which the units aren't typically described in terms of the preceding units. 42 ones, anyone?

Even odder, the command line command date +%F:%H:%M:%S%N just now yields 2021-11-07:08:46:16697136990 kencf0618

Years

 * A period of one thousand years is called a chiliad.

No, it's called a millennium. Chiliad can be used generically of any thousand things but it's emphatically not the standard term for thousand year periods. — Llywelyn II   08:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Using “M” as an abbreviation too
[https://writingexplained.org/english-abbreviations/thousand#:~:text=%E2%80%9CK%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20more%20casual,or%20cost%20per%20thousand%20impressions. “M” as an abbreviation for thousand dates back to the Roman numeral system. It is still used in instances like] CPM, or cost per thousand impressions. JMGN (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)